Joan Swirsky
Monday, January 15, 2007
There they are folks, the sixty-something, post-menopausal matrons of the Democrat Congress, the last remnants of Betty Friedan's haranguing harridans, the embracers of a woman's "natural" beauty (their botox and restylane shots notwithstanding), the enthusiastic appeasers of our enemies (as they were during the Vietnam War), and the passionate advocates of the women-are-and-will-always-be-victims school.
But Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton want you to know that it is not their lofty positions that are important, nor their vast wealth. Rather they want you to know that despite their fervent embrace of partial birth abortions (the nasty little procedure that kills fully gestated babies), their obstinate denial of school vouchers that allow parents to choose their children's schools, and their support of socialized medicine that would make our system --for children and adults alike --as disastrous as in Canada and France, they are --drum roll here --MOTHERS!
And it is mothers, they say, who can "save" our nation--but from what? Taxes at a 20-year low, a booming economy, inflation in check, interest rates low, unprecedented low employment, oil prices plummeting, empirically improved education, a Medicare plan that has lowered drug prices significantly for seniors, most of Al Qaeda's hierarchy either dead or in custody, and a nation that has not been attacked by terrorists in over six years?
Can liberals like the low-estrogen, aforementioned mothers, who revile all this good news, be trusted to do better? Can liberals, who yearn and lobby to cut and run from our conflict in Iraq be trusted to lead our nation to greater security? Can the liberal MOTHERS in Congress improve our nation's current quite-excellent condition?
At 66, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now the embodiment of womb politics vis-a-vis her constant references to and recent parading of her six children and six grandchildren. What did she learn from motherhood?
Her far-left liberal voting record speaks for itself. She may be solicitous of her own kids and grandkids, but she is clearly not remotely concerned with the safety and security of America's kids, including the heroic men and women who fight every day to defend her right to sabotage their best efforts.
If she were, why would she have voted against: :
So much for Mother Nancy!
The junior senator from California, Barbara Boxer, is a 66-year-old mother of two, grandmother, and former mother-in-law of Hillary Clinton's brother. She is another loving matriarch who thinks it's perfectly fine to kill babies, having always supported partial-birth abortions and railed against parental notification. And, typical of her ilk, she has always been an enemy of our heroic troops in terms of her consistent lack of support for other people's children when it comes to funding our war effort.
Just the other day, when questioning Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice about the president's new plan to WIN the war in Iraq --a goal anathema to--60's leftovers--Boxer said: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."
Then, Mother Boxer said to the immensely accomplished Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Boxer, of course, was referring to Ms. Rice's childless status. Here was a senator who applauds girls and women who kill babies in order to "actualize" themselves, but castigates a woman who by choice --the most precious word to liberals --has done exactly that! Chosen not to have a baby in order to serve her country and become the advisor to two presidents and one of the highest-ranking African-Americans in world history!
It was a "great leap backwards for feminism," said the president's spokesman, Tony Snow, as even Boxer's fellow Democrats winced and cringed and ran for cover.
So much for Mother Barbara!
Sixty-year-old Hillary Clinton, the junior senator from New York, trumps both Pelosi and Boxer in her intransigent liberalism. When the abortion-embracing senator talks about motherhood, echoes of her double-talking husband rise to the surface.
On a recent gab TV show, Hillary volunteered: "We've never had a mother who ever ran or was elected president..."
In an instant, President Clinton's close advisor, Dick Morris, with his wife Eileen McGann, noted that Hillary's comment was not simply an "interesting historical observation."
"Hillary doesn't work that way," they wrote. "She never says or does anything that hasn't been perfectly scripted and endlessly polled beforehand. She had a message, a new strategy to try out. So look for the new 'Mom Strategy' to be the anchor of her presidential run... Forget Soccer Moms and Security Moms; now it's going to be all Moms all the time --with Hillary as the biggest Mom of all."
In the blogosphere, Hillary is not seen as "the answer" to our nation's challenges. One woman, who described herself as a Jacksonian Democrat, said of the senator's book "It Takes A Village": "It takes a village, my a..' I've got four kids and I do it all. If I left it to the village, they'd all be smoking crack cocaine."
Another blogger said, "You know she's running because she's wearing pink again."
Leave it to the leftwing media to spread the spurious message that the likes of Pelosi, Boxer and Clinton have magically morphed into Mom figures of any note. In truth, the "success" of these quite ordinary women has been fueled by the influence of Pelosi's father, the wealth of Boxer's husband, and the Bubba factor (Hillary).
Moms for Morality, they're not. Moms to lead the nation, they're not. But Moms who embody Friedan's now-retro notion of feminism, they definitely are!
Suffice it to say that womb politics is a definite non-starter.
Joan Swirsky is a New York based journalist and author who can be reached atJoanSharon@aol.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement