Wallace: It’s ‘pretty funny’ that ‘feminists are very angry’ about Armey’s sexist comments.
Wallace: It’s ‘pretty funny’ that ‘feminists are very angry’ about Armey’s sexist comments.
Earlier this week, former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey set off a firestorm when he responded to an argument by Salon.com editor Joan Walsh with the sexist comment, “I’m so damn glad that you can never be my wife.” Appearing on Mike Gallagher’s radio show today, Fox News host Chris Wallace said that it’s “pretty funny” that “feminists” are now “very angry” over what Armey said. “It’s hysterical,” replied Gallagher:
GALLAGHER: Now, now, feminists are very angry that he said, “I’m glad you couldn’t be my wife.” I mean…
WALLACE: It’s pretty funny actually.
GALLAGHER: It’s hysterical. Do you know how many times a week I say, “thank God I don’t have to wake up next to her.” I mean some of these callers, these shrews that call.
Listen here:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, it’s obvious these misogynistic cretins ain’t gettin’ any. Bust out yer rubber dollies, boys!
January 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pmOh, Chris, your father must be so disappointed in you. Your mother, too.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pmI hate to say it but there are probably a lot more woman thanking god they don’t have to wake up next to you.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pmWow. How utterly tone deaf.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pmand I agree with them.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pmSo sad to see this in 2009
January 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pmOh GAWD, it feels like the eighties.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:12 pmI read in Daily Variety that Wallace and Billo are in negotiations to star in Clueless 2.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pmAnd republicans wonder why they’re so far in the minority. Disgusting.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pmAppearing on Mike Gallagher’s radio show today, Fox News host Chris Wallace said…
January 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm- – Wallace and Gallagher, Closet Cases Of The Nerd Kind.
wiley Says
January 30th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Oh GAWD, it feels like the eighties.
___________________________________________________________
Try the fifties. Back then, women were supposed to be exquisite, silent, and deferential to men, and any deviation from that was an acceptable excuse for unapologetic sexism as humor.
Most of us have grown up and moved on. Unfortunately, there are still a few knuckle-draggers out there who can’t seem to cope with any woman who exhibits intelligence, competence, and expresses her opinions freely and eloquently. And for those who can’t, their only weapon is a sexist putdown.
Sad, really.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:18 pmYes folk,s this how right-wingers do “funny”!
Ain’t it great?
I hear they’re also fond of fart jokes.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:19 pmClueless, fricking clueless. They still think they rule the world – while the rest of us move further into the 21st century, they, like the fundamentalis breathen, scurry back to the 19th.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:19 pmThese ’shrews’ are American citizens and your constituants – in other words; YOUR BOSSES! Mike Wallace must surely be ashamed at what his son has evolved into – or away from, depending on your point of view. To work at Fox News all you have to do is hate America and be able to tell lies on a continual basis.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:19 pmGALLAGHER: It’s hysterical. Do you know how many times a week I say, “thank God I don’t have to wake up next to her.” I mean some of these callers, these shrews that call.
Yeah, Chris hates those “shrews” that called Faux News HQ when he said Obama wasn’t president.
I understand how he needs to project those thoughts onto females, because Chris Wallace is a sissy.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pmGALLAGHER: It’s hysterical. Do you know how many times a week I say, “thank God I don’t have to wake up next to her.” I mean some of these callers, these shrews that call.
____________
Well, what caliber of listener do you expect for a radio show where you do nothing but smash watermelons with a sledgehammer? That’s not exactly This American Life, ya know…
January 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pmhuh.
have you wives to go home to guys?
mistresses? … could be even worse… … ah, prolly not…
maybe they’re all like my sister… she’d agree…
never mind.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pmGALLAGHER: It’s hysterical. Do you know how many times a week I say, “thank God I don’t have to wake up next to her.” I mean some of these callers, these shrews that call.
__________________________________________________________
Shrews? Tell me, Mike — what makes a woman a “shrew” in your book? Intelligence? Ability to hold her own in an argument? Failure to gush over your masculinity?
Do you ever have male callers who get the best of you? What do you call them?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:22 pmGiggle. Is Dwight D. Eisenhower still President?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pmSorry, Ralph, but I do like a good fart joke occasionally.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pmAs if Joan would even want to wake up in the same neighborhood as Armey much less beside him. When Armey said that I bet Joan was thinking AS IF you loser. The man has delusions of adequacy
January 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pmWow Joan Walsh totally rocked that. I had not heard that exchange before because I was too squeamish, but she was awesome.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pmSorry, Ralph, but I do like a good fart joke occasionally.
—
“Farts are fun. Farts are great. Farts are shit without the mess”
RIP George Carlin
January 30th, 2009 at 5:25 pmNoMoreBush Says:
Giggle. Is Dwight D. Eisenhower still President?
Ike isn’t Reagan enough to qualify as a Republican president anymore.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:25 pmI’m so damn glad Chris Wallace could never be my son.
RIP
January 30th, 2009 at 5:28 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
*Is* Mike Wallace dead…?
I daresay that if he isn’t – he’s embarrassed enough by the spawn of his loins to wish that he was…
January 30th, 2009 at 5:29 pmYou know what’s really funny? When them uppity broads even think they get to be on political talk shows. They just should have aimed the camera at her chest and turned off the mike. HAHAHAHAHAAAH!
/republican
.
Leftside Annie Says:
*Is* Mike Wallace dead…?
It’s a bit of a gray area. He’s still walking around although he was technically embalmed a few years ago. Him and Larry King both went in on it on a dare.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pmYes, the Repug/Neocons really knocked it outta the park! with that one. Next come the ‘jokes’ about her appearance.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pmwhy do repukes fear educated, eloquent women?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pmas a man, i was both shocked and offended with what this assclown said.
P.S: Think of the “recommend” link on comment #3 as more of a poll. Click accordingly.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pmsmirky greasy little butt holes!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pmIf a Republican politician makes a sexist comment: “Oh, it’s in fun…it’s in jest…oh, we all do it.”
If any non-Republican says something bad about Rush Limbaugh or another popular GOP thug: Your e-mail and voicemail is full of messages in support of Limbaugh or the other clown, because YOU ARE WRONG AND WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG and needed to apologize as of yesterday.
So when comparing and contrasting, it’s obvious when the Republicans say they are for the Constitution they are for about four lines total of the document.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pmFeminists.
Feminist = Caring
What’s so funny about a white old fart talking about being “married” to a viable guest? Does armey talk this way towards men?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pmWhy is this story more important than the ongoing possible War Crimes in Afghanistan ? The German Press and many across Europe are aghasted that the Supreme NATO Commander in Afghanistan, US Gen. Craddock is ordering the death of anyone involved in Opium.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pmNeanderthals like Gallagher and Wallace are born out of their time — about a generation or two too late.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:43 pmThey are threatened by women who are smart and articulate, who don’t defer to the man in the room, and can debate him toe to toe. Armey, the cretin resorts to his male chauvinist persona, and these two idiots think he is right.
Only if he thinks John McCain is a hottie
January 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pmI thank FSM everyday that I don’t wake up next to such a weak man.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:45 pmWhere’s backedup to tell us how some of their best friends are women?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:48 pmSo if I get this brave new reinvention of the Republican Party, misogyny is accepted if not expected, your spokesperson is a racist junkie who spews hate to a bunch of sociopathic mouth breathers and in place of true inclusion you substitute patronizing tokenism (Chairman Steele, meet General Powell). Nice going wingnuts. You just reinvented yourself from off-white to beige.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:49 pmWhat’s even funnier Mr. Wallace is the fact that the only reason Dick Armey resorted to the personal insult of Joan Walsh was because he was getting his fat, ignorant, know-nothing ass kicked up one side and down the other in the debate they were having. Now that’s what I call hysterical!
Just saying . . .
January 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pmI think even if you’re one to agree with the statement, it doesn’t change the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand and had no place on any news broadcast. It was nothing more than an insult to keep the focus of of Armey’s nonexistent rebuttal.
It’s the type of thing you keep to yourself and tell your friends, if anything.
Calling them “shrews” while making fun of them is kind of the icing on the cake.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pmOne echo chamber hosting a guest from another echo chamber: All you get is noise.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pmI would normally think it’s funny that these cretins still get paid well to mouth their idiocy over the airwaves–except that in these times with many more undoubtedly decent and intelligent people unemployed or underemployed, it’s hard to laugh.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pmKeep in mind, these are the people who think Dennis Miller is funny.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pmI do too.
But it’s not really a staple of the kind of humor I like.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pmNot with that 91% top tax rate he presided over.
He’s a goddamn socialist!
January 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pmI betcha Chris Wallace didn’t got to public school.
with that smug smirk, he’da had his plough cleaned hourly.
woulda wiped that suppressed amusement right off his face…
January 30th, 2009 at 5:59 pmarmey’s comment was so clearly sexist because it presumes that women (and wives) are supposed to be compliant, timid, non-confrontational, subservient, etc……and they should never, ever disagree with men (or their husband).
January 30th, 2009 at 6:01 pmI watched the duel of words between Armey and Walsh. The first thing that came to mind is when he was teaching a college student reported him for being to aggressive toward her. The guy she reported it too allegedly said, (paraphrasing) “Oh, Armey is after the students again!” On the other side of the pillow, should I start drinking again and some morning wake up with Ann Coulter and her Adam’s Apple laying asleep on my arm, I would chew it off at the shoulder just so I wouldn’t wake her .
January 30th, 2009 at 6:01 pmWallace, Limbaugh and Hannity are fart jokes…they all spew Flatulence and are definately jokes.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:01 pmChris, you really should try hetero sex, you might find you like it. Like the rest of your Young Republican buddies you gave it the old college try and got shut down (that smirk may have had something to do with it) but keep trying.
It will give you a whole new outlook on life, and think of the money you will save on blow up dolls.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm“Feminists are very angry”?? Uh, try women in general & men who support women as well. Gallagher, Wallace & Armey are antiques — throwbacks to the days when men loved treating women as their possessions, never to be equal. They’re repugnant in today’s world.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:22 pmAsking a Republican to comment on women’s rights or civil rights is like asking a, oh I don’t know, I can’t think of a group more hateful than the Republicans right now.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pmYeah, how come they’re calling people who find this offensive “feminists” as if they’re some minority special interest group? The whole thing reads quite differently if you edit it slightly:
GALLAGHER: Now, now, decent people are very angry that he said, “I’m glad you couldn’t be my wife.” I mean…
It’s not like “feminists” (whatever those are these days) are the only ones who find such comments offensive.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pmDo Republicans think that “feminists” is just anybody who thinks that that women should be treated the same as men?
… hey, wait a second, that’s what it does mean! What the -
January 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pmChris Wallace just slit his own throat with his mysogenistic, insensitive commentary. Clearly, Armey’s comments are hideously crass on two counts – the fact that he was so handicapped and unable to engage in intelligent discourse on the topic without the condescending snarky comments like “give it a rest” (as to trivialize Joan’s remarks) showed his total and utter lack of class, finesse, intelligence, and how out of sync he is with contemporary life.
The second point is that, in his total inefficiency as a talking head on national television, he had to resort to what is essentially “name calling” or “schoolyard tactics” implying that I’m glad that you’re not my girlfriend….WTF is this man thinking? Obviously, nothing intelligent or mature.
Dick Armey showed the people of this country what a total dickhead he is. His reputation is toast. He’s an over-the-hill desperate and juvenile old man.
Maybe someone needs to send him a care package of stool softeners because his entire plumbing is clogged and his feces are infecting his brain.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:46 pmEh. Gotta watch out for those feminazis, right Chris?? They’ll chew yer ballz right off!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEK!!!
(heheheh – snark!)
January 30th, 2009 at 6:46 pmLeftside Annie: Your comment would be accurate if Chris Wallace had a set of balls. His, clearly, have never descended.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pmChris Wallace needs to come out of the closet. He’s the only one he thinks he’s fooling.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pmBut remember, the libruls were call sexist for saying that Palin wasn’t qualified for the office she sought.
Only difference? We were correct.
PEACE
January 30th, 2009 at 6:59 pmWallace, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly = America’s Taliban.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pmSorry bunch of circle-jerkers haven’t been laid since Nov. 4th.
Not a surprise here. Just typical double standards from the right. If that were said by a Dem to Sarah Palin, Wallace would be leading the charge against that Democrat, of course. And he would probably even put a ticker on his Sunday morning show to let you know how many hours have gone by before he apologized to Palin.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:30 pmEverything she said was correct. Whether she said it or it was written by an unknown hand on the sidewalk with chalk. It’s true.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pmShe is right about some Democrats helping the Republicans ruin everything. Republicans can’t see over the heads of their rich benefactors to see the wreck they’ve made of the U.S.
Today’s Republicans seem like a throwback to the Mickey Spillane, Brat Pack, when-Hef-was-young days.
What a smug little twit this guy is…
January 30th, 2009 at 7:56 pmAnd as for being “actually pretty funny”….once again showing republicans are not people who understand humor..
Guido the Loving OBGYN Says:
It’s very revealing that everything gets reduced to whether you’d sleep with someone or not.
___________
So… which GOOPers are sleeping w/ “El Rushbo”??
January 30th, 2009 at 8:00 pmFontsdeleon Says:
Republicans can’t see over the heads of their rich benefactors to see the wreck they’ve made of the U.S.
___________
Republicans never get above the belt buckle.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:02 pmAnd these are the men that speak for the Republican Party. Why the heck do Republican woman put up with this stuff. They are good at degrading woman and having their woman walk behind them instead of in front or beside them. Chris Wallace is a true Fox man. Fox has woman on it who don’t care that they are used for dress candy. They love it. Boy you wonder what some parents have taught their male children. Here is a good example of it right from the horses mouth.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pmYeah, that stallion Dick Armey. If he weren’t such a pansy he could probably pass for unattractive. What a dope.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:18 pmMike, what kind of idiot did you raise?
January 30th, 2009 at 9:03 pmwe know which head both these guys think with.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pmWould he thing that anti-Semitic comments were “pretty funny?” Just wondering.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:36 pmMike is thinkin’ “why didn’t I just yank-it in the shower THAT night?”
January 30th, 2009 at 9:50 pmGallagher’s wife died of cancer last summer. In the article linked below, he described her as “a frustratingly liberal-leaning woman” and he obviously loved her very much. I don’t exactly know the point I am trying to make, but hearing his comments to Wallace in light of what happened to his “frustratingly liberal-leaning” wife really struck me.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeGallagher/2008/07/14/good-bye_to_tony_snow_and_denise_gallagher
January 30th, 2009 at 10:00 pmI am just gald she didn’t die from a blow from and oversized hammer… (No disrespect to the dead intended)
January 30th, 2009 at 10:18 pm______
WillowOrchid Says:
Yes, the Repug/Neocons really knocked it outta the park! with that one. Next come the ‘jokes’ about her appearance.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
______
You mean like these?
DICKERSON3870 Says:
Kondi does her hair up like a fright wig
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/10/bush-rejected-israels-request-for-bombs-to-attack-iran/
stewarjt Says:
After 8 long years, Condi getting a hair do that isn’t a hair don’t is a “great strategic achievement.” And, I predict it will do far more for world peace than killing Saddam.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/07/rice-iraq-strategic-achievement/
upside99 Says:
S.D. Says:
Say, where is the Coultergeist anyway??
‘She’ has been in hiding since ‘her’ estrogen injections have been wearing off and ‘her’ 5 o’clock shadow became a Grizzly Adams’ full beard.
But not to worry, ’she’ had some new treatments and ‘her’ facial hair and Adams Apple are shrinking once again.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/07/cbs-review-rather/
______
Of course, whore and bimbo aren’t appearance comments, but some people consider them to be sexist if there is no evidence they are accurate.
DieNowForPeace Says:
WHAT A STUPID TRAITOR OF A WHORE.
Where did all these un-American a$$holes come from anyway?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
upside99 Says:
Frosty Cupcake Says:
And to top it all off, she looks just like all the other women in this administration (minus Rice) – like Fox News “anchors”.
What’s up with that? It’s really weird.
Yea Frosty,
January 30th, 2009 at 11:39 pmI call them the Faux Blonde Bimbo Brigade (TM). ALl you need is to be female, blonde and either stoo-pid or willing to whore out to BushCo and to Rupert.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/28/goodling-passed-over-experienced-counterterrorism-prosecutor-because-wife-was-a-democrat/
Uh, Mike, would it be really, really, funny if you asked someone a question on Fox News Sunday and they asked how come Fox lets Jews host their programs? Tell me how funny THAT is, please.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:00 amupright left Says:
—————
Of course, we don’t get millions of dollars a year from radio, television and book contracts to suggest that judges s/b gassed or poisoned, or reporters s/b strung up from light poles either.
We also don’t get to say these things on national television under the guise of “serious journalism”, huh?
Want to go ask nationally syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker which side is nastier?
The Omen In My Mail
By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn’t, I should “off” myself.
Those are a few nuggets randomly selected from thousands of e-mails written in response to my column suggesting that Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down.
Who says public discourse hasn’t deteriorated?
The fierce reaction to my column has been both bracing and enlightening. After 20 years of column writing, I’m familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002315.html?sub=AR
_____________
You’re really a bit of a coward, aren’t you?
You only show up after everyone is gone, so they can’t defend what they said, and you don’t have to stand up for what you said.
And now you’re going back 6 months again.
You’re really a very angry, desperate, lonely person, huh?
Just kidding, Wrongie… we’re all just friends here… bud… just like when Malkin publishes peoples’ home phone numbers so her Flying Monkey Brigades can start calling in the death threats.
Gotta go, Wrongie. Turn out the lights when you’re peeing in the corners.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:38 am______
spencers mom Says:
But remember, the libruls were call sexist for saying that Palin wasn’t qualified for the office she sought.
Only difference? We were correct.
PEACE
January 30th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
______
There were some who questioned whether Palin’s experience as governor would have been belittled as much by the left had she been male, even before her lack of knowledge of national affairs became apparent. The accusations of liberals being sexist regarding Palin had more to do with those saying she had no business running for VP because she had small children and the remarks about her hair styles and those who ridiculed her family. The suggestions that the baby might belong to her daughter, and especially the mention that Down’s might result from incest and how suspicious it was that the son had to go away just then, didn’t help either. ;)
January 31st, 2009 at 12:51 am_____
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
;(
January 31st, 2009 at 12:38 am
____
Dang, bud, you’re quite testy these days. You’re absolutely correct; some of the righties are every bit as nasty as lefties. You really ought to think before you post, though. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of those whining here about righties being sexist when this blog is full of the same thing from the left. But, I see you excuse it from the regular folks. What size does the audience have to be before it’s no longer acceptable for a lefty to make sexist remarks. TP gets quite a few hits these days. Is there a time limit on being responsible for one’s comments?
As for “showing up after everyone is gone,” it’s not unheard of for a thread to even have posts the next day!
Angry? Why would you think I’m angry, bud? I always enjoy our little exchanges. How could I possibly be angry when you are so entertaining? I appreciate your concern for my happiness, but my life is pretty great right now, thanks. ;)
January 31st, 2009 at 1:27 am“There were some who questioned whether Palin’s experience as governor would have been belittled as much by the left had she been male, even before her lack of knowledge of national affairs became apparent.”
Cute way to couch this. You can put forth any premise under the guise of “some say”. I’m willing to bet that none of us here, nor any progressive talking head, ever belittled her experience as a female governor, just as the fairly recently elected governor of a state with a total population lower than that of, say, New York City. Her prior experience as mayor of Wassila did not exactly qualify her for the second-highest position in the U.S. government, who did the Rs think they were kidding with that “executive experience” bullcrap. BTW, what did the “some” have to say when it her lack of knowledge of national (and what about international, huh?) affairs DID become apparent? Spencer’s Mom is right, we WERE correct.
“The accusations of liberals being sexist regarding Palin had more to do with those saying she had no business running for VP because she had small children and the remarks about her hair styles and those who ridiculed her family…”
The main concern that I heard expressed, particularly from women with special-needs children, was that, as VP, Palin would not be able to devote the time and care necessary when one has a special-needs child. Palin’s reported actions on the day that she gave birth to her youngest were decried by all of the mothers that I spoke with. Do you really think that the “family values” party would have said nothing had the Democrats put up the mother of an infant special-needs child as their Veep nominee?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:16 am______
Jane E. Schneider Says:
Cute way to couch this. You can put forth any premise under the guise of “some say”. I’m willing to bet that none of us here, nor any progressive talking head, ever belittled her experience as a female governor, just as the fairly recently elected governor of a state with a total population lower than that of, say, New York City. Her prior experience as mayor of Wassila did not exactly qualify her for the second-highest position in the U.S. government, who did the Rs think they were kidding with that “executive experience” bullcrap. BTW, what did the “some” have to say when it her lack of knowledge of national (and what about international, huh?) affairs DID become apparent? Spencer’s Mom is right, we WERE correct.
The main concern that I heard expressed, particularly from women with special-needs children, was that, as VP, Palin would not be able to devote the time and care necessary when one has a special-needs child. Palin’s reported actions on the day that she gave birth to her youngest were decried by all of the mothers that I spoke with. Do you really think that the “family values” party would have said nothing had the Democrats put up the mother of an infant special-needs child as their Veep nominee?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:16 am
______
The question was whether a male governor of Alaska would have been belittled as Palin was even before it became apparent that she was not qualified. There is no way to prove that. As for those who continued to back her after it became apparent she wasn’t qualified, they were following the party line as partisans generally do.
Liberals aren’t known for being strong advocates of stay-at-home moms. Special needs children generally are enrolled in early intervention programs. Down syndrome children aren’t necessarily medically fragile and parents of Down’s children go to work every day.
Does the fact that repubs may have criticized a Dem mother of a special needs child make it ok for Dems, who pride themselves on treating everyone the same and standing up for moms who choose to work, to criticize Palin for working?
January 31st, 2009 at 3:06 amRepublicans were sexist for nominating Palin in the first place. She wasn’t qualified to be president. Period. That has nothing to do with her gender, it’s based on her qualifications.McCain chose her only because she was a woman. Period. (that and he’s a dirty old man) Repubs couldn’t defend her on basis of her qualifications so they hid behind claims of sexism. Period. Repubs are all about the symbol, and never about the substance. period.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:12 amDoes the fact that repubs may have criticized a Dem mother of a special needs child make it ok for Dems, who pride themselves on treating everyone the same and standing up for moms who choose to work, to criticize Palin for working?
Does the fact that Dems may have criticized Palin for using her kids a stage props and then hiding behind charges of sexism make it ok for repubs to be sexist bullies on cable newschat shows or show their true sexist character on wingnut radio?
January 31st, 2009 at 4:15 amWhen the new RNC Chair gets his dumb ass into hot water over something, you can bet the wignnuts will call it racism too.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:18 amshock stuff like limbaugh and o’reilly – it drives me away from any and all of it – it has no real value – they are just looking for ratings
January 31st, 2009 at 4:37 amGallagher having never served in the military, however he likes to dress up like a general!
leftthought.blogspot.com/2005/08/mike-gallagher-again.html
January 31st, 2009 at 6:42 amupright left Says
January 31st, 2009 at 3:06 am
Liberals aren’t known for being strong advocates of stay-at-home moms. Special needs children generally are enrolled in early intervention programs. Down syndrome children aren’t necessarily medically fragile and parents of Down’s children go to work every day.
Does the fact that repubs may have criticized a Dem mother of a special needs child make it ok for Dems, who pride themselves on treating everyone the same and standing up for moms who choose to work, to criticize Palin for working?
_______________________________________________________
I think you are taking the remarks of a few and using them to paint all liberals with the same wide brush.
First, liberals are as much in support of stay-at-home moms as anyone else — that is, as long as the mom chose to stay home and wasn’t forced to. Women have the right to choose what they do with their life and what role they play in the family, just as men do. And staying at home and rearing children is as valid a vocation as any other (same goes for fathers!).
Second, you are focusing on the remarks of some liberals and not others. Yes, some have criticized Palin for working — which set the Palin defenders pouncing. Most of these critics weren’t making that point because they genuinely believed that mothers should all stay home and take care of their children, but to point out the hypocrisy of an ideology that has been no friend to working women (”you’ll do anything to hurt working women, but it’s OK when it’s your veep nominee”). And you may have noticed that for every liberal who criticized Palin for working outside the home with a special needs child — for whatever reason — there were other liberals (like me) who would smack that down, claiming that if Palin was a man with a special needs child, nobody would have a problem with him running for Vice President (at least not for that reason). After all, there are many legitimate reasons to criticize Palin — we don’t have to contradict our own values by being sexist.
Now — you appear to be making a case for Armey, Wallace, and Gallagher’s blatant and incredibly offensive sexism, claiming it’s OK because some people criticized Palin for working. This is beyond lame. Sexism is wrong no matter where it’s coming from.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:36 am______
______
misshusseinmolly Says:
I think you are taking the remarks of a few and using them to paint all liberals with the same wide brush.
First, liberals are as much in support of stay-at-home moms as anyone else — that is, as long as the mom chose to stay home and wasn’t forced to. Women have the right to choose what they do with their life and what role they play in the family, just as men do. And staying at home and rearing children is as valid a vocation as any other (same goes for fathers!).
Second, you are focusing on the remarks of some liberals and not others. Yes, some have criticized Palin for working — which set the Palin defenders pouncing. Most of these critics weren’t making that point because they genuinely believed that mothers should all stay home and take care of their children, but to point out the hypocrisy of an ideology that has been no friend to working women (”you’ll do anything to hurt working women, but it’s OK when it’s your veep nominee”). And you may have noticed that for every liberal who criticized Palin for working outside the home with a special needs child — for whatever reason — there were other liberals (like me) who would smack that down, claiming that if Palin was a man with a special needs child, nobody would have a problem with him running for Vice President (at least not for that reason). After all, there are many legitimate reasons to criticize Palin — we don’t have to contradict our own values by being sexist.
Now — you appear to be making a case for Armey, Wallace, and Gallagher’s blatant and incredibly offensive sexism, claiming it’s OK because some people criticized Palin for working. This is beyond lame. Sexism is wrong no matter where it’s coming from.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:36 am
______
Obviously, my comments were toward liberals in general and the fact that you were an exception is duly noted. I didn’t see your objection to comments regarding Palin working, but I did see one other one. There were comments pointing out that righties might have criticized a Dem in Palin’s position, most didn’t. Those comments can’t be dismissed; the hypocrisy exists. And, yes, there are more than enough legitimate reasons to criticize Palin without resorting to using her children as well.
I make no excuses for anyone. Just as Armey, Wallace and Gallagher were wrong, libs are wrong for criticizing the appearance of women with whom they disagree as noted in comment #76. It’s the hypocrisy. There are more than enough reasons to criticize Coulter without using her appearance. Willow orchard was concerned that righties might do that to Walsh. Calling a woman a whore because you disagree with her doesn’t really seem like the action of someone who wants women to be treated equally either. And, while I’m sure you’ve never done that, it happens frequently here and is rarely, if ever criticized by the regulars. You see the hypocrisy. ;)
January 31st, 2009 at 9:41 amYou see the hypocrisy.
All of upright left’s comments and responses demonstrate that he will never see that the Republican party IS the party of hypocrisy. Picking out some instances of liberals on a blog who might have made fun of Palin’s appearance is nothing compared to the out-and-out lies the R’s talking heads told about both Hillary and Obama on national tv. You cannot distract us from the fact that Palin simply was not qualified for VP. If she had been a man, she would not have been qualified. Period.
Calling a woman a whore because you disagree with her doesn’t really seem like the action of someone who wants women to be treated equally either.
Way to go with throwing Coulter into this mix. The vast majority of liberal women do not call another woman a whore just because we disagree with them. Coulter, through her own words and actions, earns every epithet thrown at her. There is a huge difference between belittling one woman in particular and belittling ALL women.
Nice broad brush, ul.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:40 amWhy would anybody take anything this man says seriously. I mean, from the picture it looks like he’s sliding a one-cheek-squeak and is proud of it. It probably makes more sense than what’s coming from the other end.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:09 pmI just googled Mike Gallagher and he is one of the ugliest suckers I have ever laid eyes on. He’d be lucky to get even a shrew it looks like to me.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pmupright left Says:
I make no excuses for anyone.
Certainly you’ve got to see the distinction between anonymous commenters on a blog vs. elected politicians, TV news hosts and radio hosts. There’s a different standard in effect. The sorts of comments you’ve cited havn’t been repeated by liberal politicians or journalists.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pm______
Jane E. Schneider Says:
All of upright left’s comments and responses demonstrate that he will never see that the Republican party IS the party of hypocrisy. Picking out some instances of liberals on a blog who might have made fun of Palin’s appearance is nothing compared to the out-and-out lies the R’s talking heads told about both Hillary and Obama on national tv. You cannot distract us from the fact that Palin simply was not qualified for VP. If she had been a man, she would not have been qualified. Period.
Way to go with throwing Coulter into this mix. The vast majority of liberal women do not call another woman a whore just because we disagree with them. Coulter, through her own words and actions, earns every epithet thrown at her. There is a huge difference between belittling one woman in particular and belittling ALL women.
Nice broad brush, ul.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:40 am
______
How can I be trying to distract you from Palin’s lack of qualifications when I agree with you? Does lack of qualification make it ok for her to have been called a whore? I never said any woman called anyone a whore. I said posters used the word whore to describe women with whom they disagreed. Does the Republican party being more sexist excuse sexism by libs (picking out some instances of liberals on a blog)? Or is the blog excuse like tros used (sexism by libs on a blog is ok)? If a woman is especially vile like Coulter, is sexism ok? None of your excuses negates the hypocrisy. If a statement is sexism when made by a repub, it’s sexism when made by a lib. And I’m quite sure the majority here would have had a problem with Armey etc had they suggested Walsh is promiscuous or made fun of her appearance, as suggested by willow orchid. ;)
January 31st, 2009 at 1:57 pm______
ElBruce Says:
Certainly you’ve got to see the distinction between anonymous commenters on a blog vs. elected politicians, TV news hosts and radio hosts. There’s a different standard in effect. The sorts of comments you’ve cited havn’t been repeated by liberal politicians or journalists.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
______
I’m not sure why you don’t think you should be held to the same standard as those you mentioned. By that measure, is it ok to tell racist jokes on a blog?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pmFirst, ul, blogging here is an interactive thing. Folks parry and thrust, speak and respond.
Folks on the air just speak.
As to racist jokes, the closest I’ve seen on this site come from the trolls. I have read more insightful comments here (as well as many digs) than I have ever heard on broadcast media.
The comments on this site haven’t been repeated by liberal journalists because…there aren’t many. The ‘Liberal’ media was bought up years ago and most of the responsible journalists have had to move on to other jobs because Rupert and company only want to pay for sleeze.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:50 pmWallace is dead wrong by limiting anger only to ‘Feminists’.
It is not just ‘Feminists’ who are angry about Armey’s remarks, I was angry too, and I am a man,so are many other men who posted their angry remarks here on TP.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:16 pmArmey’s remark were tasteless, disrespectful ,and undefendable.
I wish I could *punch* that smirk off his face!
February 1st, 2009 at 3:07 amYou know, Chris Wallace is only doing what the Foxophiles do best-defend sexism, racism, and nativism. I don’t know why we’re surprised or shocked or even angry about it.
As far as I’m concerned, this bunch can keep talking loud and long. It will keep the rethugs in the wilderness for years.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:13 amThe worthless, degenerate son of a real journalist. Sad.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pmLeftside Annie Says: Eh. Gotta watch out for those feminazis, right Chris?? They’ll chew yer ballz right off!!!! EEEEEEEEEEK!!! (heheheh – snark!)
rimhotep Says:
Leftside Annie: Your comment would be accurate if Chris Wallace had a set of balls. His, clearly, have never descended.
This morning, it is the two of you who caused my near-daily eruption of coffee onto monitor. MORE, MORE!
February 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pmILovesds says, Boy you wonder what some parents have taught their male children. Here is a good example of it right from the horses mouth.
Actually, it’s from the other end of the horse.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pmRethugs wonder why they never get any?
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 pmWhat is it about Dittohead Trolls and that stupid smirk.
They all have it.
Cheney – Bush – this assclown.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm