Estrich on political inexperience
With not a hint of self-awareness or irony, Susan Estrich pens a column devoted to the idea that electing the politically inexperienced is dangerous—without acknowledging that, with some mild tweaking, her argument fits President Obama quite nicely.
Now it’s true that he wasn’t technically a newbie to politics. But his political experience was extremely slim on the national level, and what’s far more important is that it completely lacked any managerial or executive component—which at least these Republican businesswomen whom Estrich critiques (such as Fiorina) have in the private sector. It is a puzzlement that Estrich can write the following and not see how perfectly it applies to President Obama; one can only conclude that for various complex reasons, her denial mechanism is working overtime:
Ultimately, this isn’t a game. Ultimately, what matters is not winning but governing. People’s lives depend on it. The nation’s future depends on it. Politics is difficult; governing is hard. Learning lines, winning debates, scoring points against your rival — that’s tough, but not nearly as tough as getting things done once you’re in office.
[NOTE: And Tina Brown proves that the venom and debunking directed by so-called feminist women on the left towards Sarah Palin during and after the 2008 campaign was no fluke or special case. No matter what their accomplishments, women in public life can only get the feminist stamp of approval if they toe the complete party line of the left; otherwise they are imposters.
The same has been long true of prominent and influential African-Americans who happen to be black; if they’re not owned by the left, they’re are no better than Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas in the left’s eyes. As Allahpundit writes, “no matter how diverse the GOP becomes, the authenticity card will always be there to discredit its candidates.”
Ironically (boy, I’ve been using that word a lot lately) it fell to George Stephanopoulos to attempt to correct Tina; he must have known she’d put her foot in it. , Here’s the transcript:
TINA BROWN: But, actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you could argue they’re different kinds of feminists. They’ve had a lot of success in different fields.]
I have a hunch that the column, at some level, was aimed at the Obami. I recall that she was a Hillary supporter.
Bob from Virginia: agreed. But I think the level might have been more unconscious than conscious on Estrich’s part.
one can only conclude that for various complex reasons, her denial mechanism is working overtime
nope…
denial requires the acceptance of the information so that one can then activly refuse it.
there is an easier and more common way to do this.
that is, let your brain filter your information subconsciously, and you never ever even see the relationship or point and so never ever have to actually deny it internally or externally.
her AVOIDANCE RADAR is on full, she is just refusing to step into a minefield so as to deny its existence, which as long as no one steps in the minefield, is a supportable delusion.
she is not aware enough to deny
Artfldgr: I disagree. Estrich was a Hillary supporter, and although she threw her lot in with Obama like a good Democrat, she never really drank much of the Koolaid. She has continued to criticize him and the Democrat line around health care, and Obama’s war on Fox. IMHO, she does seem to have some sort of basic consciousness of the things she is denying.
Speculate:
Estrich thinks there’s the real world, and then there’s the private sector. The latter is, in every way possible, inferior to the former. Thus, success and experience in the private sector means absolutely nothing.
Only the government counts. The rest is an unfortunate spillover of individual interests meaning nothing in the aggregate.
“denial requires the acceptance of the information so that one can then activly refuse it.”
You’re confusing cynicism with denial. (It’s understandable in our current political, uh, climate.) Denial is simply the flat refusal to even treat anything contrary to what is believd as even worthy of consideration, while cynicism requires thinking about it long enough to build a case (if an irrational one) as to why it’s untrue.
women in public life can only get the feminist stamp of approval if they toe the complete party line of the left; otherwise they are imposters
which means that in reality, as i have been saying, feminism is only for the communist women, not all women. and so feminism is not equal to all women, but denies most women, in favor of what they think are real women.
they represent a minority and favor a minority of the majority they collect power from. the same is true on the race side of the equation.
which is why africans dont know the refutation of the three fifths human thing as told by frederick douglass. they dont know about the first lawyers int eh 1700s…
women don’t even realize that the major feminists while denying that women were able to go to school, ALL HAD DEGREES FROM SCHOOLS..
they told HALF truths… and women swallowed whole.
and now that a communist progressive state is being finalized, your now clearly seeing that women have no other representation and no other voice speaking for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it doesn’t matter what the click of friends you held up to me wants, thinks or says… they do not get to apply the collective power summed up from thousands of factions under one umbrella completely made falsely synonymous with woman by
propaganda.
anyone other than me read their works, their texts and theories, and then compared what we got and what they promised? its the same bag of rocks the socialists sold people and then gave them.
weeks ago, i laid out how abortion and feminism changes the demographic outcomes and is eradicating throug extermination.
of course thats denied… how could women do that
U.S. Nears Racial Milestone
Whites Are on Verge of Becoming a Minority Among Newborns in Long-Expected Shift
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312104575298512006681060.html
you can go down the line and if you take the time you can, like all progressive movements, find that absence of morals means that they can compete using things that the other side refuses to. and if the other side does not use their advantages, then the fight always goes to them. (the advantages are not pc, so we dont use them, and so they win, and we the non elite lose)
since feminisms promise of a woman utopia with a all new enlightenment and great works to come from it, what we have is state taxation of womens labor rather than no taxes on that, children abandoned to the progressive education system, parents no longer parents but wards, loss of the good qualities of masculine, loss of the good qualities of feminism, promotion of negative male qualities as the only good ones (making ladettes and mini men of women. or as one feminist wrote and realized. the woman in side every lady dying to get out turned out to be a man). literacy is down, poverty is up, broken homes and early fecundity and diseases are the norm. smartest women no longer are a sink repository for intelligence, but self exterminate their contribution believing feminists blank slate equality. sadistic abuse in the schools is the norm as females side with teh alpha male abusers, rather than dominate them to stop like the males did. (but then again, socialism needs a brute class to force compliance through fear)
all one has to do is read the works that inspire them.
and its not the works they give you to read in required feminist studies…
MOST of this was wrought by the women, as Marx pointed out (and Hitler pointed out in his writings) and Mikhail Bakunin, one of the archetects of the soviet revolution pointed out.
do note that THEY know this history (you don’t), and knowing it gains you entry to listen to them!!! that is if you let them know you know it, and don’t disagree… if you know it when they hide it, then you know… and so they are more friendly, and so you can really hear things. the same kind of things you only hear in a slip up, like maxine waters, or our recent retiree…
21. The sixth category is especially important: women. They can be divided into three main groups.
First, those frivolous, thoughtless, and vapid women, whom we shall use as we use the third and fourth category of men.
Second, women who are ardent, capable, and devoted, but whom do not belong to us because they have not yet achieved a passionless and austere revolutionary understanding; these must be used like the men of the fifth category.
ah… there are only three groups of women and all of them are being used, as are the majority of the men…
of course a person who DOES have ardent capable and is devoted would take the further step and go read and learn… they would be able to discuss that which the other groups dont even believe.
[i used to have great discussions with a militant feminist progressive. she let her guard down, because i was able to reference this level of stuff, and she had never met anyone who knew that who wasn’t in on it. its like a church accepting an atheist who has studied the bible very well]
Finally, there are the women who are completely on our side — i.e., those who are wholly dedicated and who have accepted our program in its entirety. We should regard these women as the most valuable or our treasures; without their help, we would never succeed.
so what does the words of Bakunin, one of the originators of the soviet unions revolution mean in terms of what he is telling his followers to do?
do you know this? do you read this? even if i link to it, do you read what they read?
the reason gun enthusiasts know so much about guns is not that they buy thousands of them, its because they read, hang out with other enthusiasts, etc.
same applies to ideology…
except in this ideology only the inner inner circle gets to know the truth. (and they get to know it because it does not change their direction, if it does, then they don’t get to learn more)
they’re are no better than Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas in the left’s eyes
if Africans knew their own history they would WANT to be an uncle tom…
you have to LOVE how wiki chalks up the change created by Stalinism (revisioned history), and propaganda so that such would become pejorative.
its like one of those elitist jokes, like what is the sound of one hand clapping, or which came first chicken or the egg, or if a tree falls… all of those have proper answers that the well educated know, and that the common man, looks the fool for answering.
to those in the know and who don’t like Africans, its a joke proving their ignorance.
Uncle Tom is a pejorative term for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to white authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation from wiki.
and thats how it is today…
but has anyone here actually read beechers stowes novel uncle toms cabin? it was allowed when i was a kid and like the other founders was taught in elite classes where the kids were to go on to academia.
The term comes from the title character of American writer Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Critical and popular views of both the character and the novel have shifted over time, leading to the shift in the term’s use.
oh.. just like the rememberance of the radical republicans and democrats are inverted..
or how the three fifts of a person stuff was refuted by Douglass being forgotten to day, so as to foment race hate and hatred of the founders as racists, which Douglass shows (and who blacks don’t read) that such was not so!!!!!!!!!!
its meaning is shifted…
who shifted it, and from what to what?
At the time of the novel’s initial publication in 1851 Uncle Tom was a rejection of the existing stereotypes of minstrel shows; Stowe’s melodramatic story humanized the suffering of slavery for white audiences by portraying Tom as a Christlike figure who is ultimately martyred, beaten to death by a cruel master because Tom refuses to betray the whereabouts of two fugitive female slaves
so uncle tom was a man who was subjected to slavery and more moral than his owners.
he refused to give up slaves ,and so went against the left of that time, who argued that the constitution allowed for slavery,which Douglass showed it did NOT.
So why did uncle tom go from a moral, upright man willing to suffer for what was right to such a nasty term?
well, uncle tom was also a christian, and his morality, as the foudners morality, and western morality, was born of christian morality. which teaches of the saints and that such high faluting status comes with never compromising in the face of god.
dont believe me?
The novel was very influential and commercially successful, first published in serial form in 1851-1852 and in book version from 1852 onward. An estimated 500,000 copies of the novel itself had sold in the United States and internationally by 1853, including unauthorized reprints.
Senator Charles Sumner credited Uncle Tom’s Cabin for the election of Abraham Lincoln and Lincoln himself reportedly quipped that Stowe had triggered the American Civil War.
sumner was a radical republican..
so uncle toms cabin is waht got lincoln elected. its what started the civil war and what destroyed the power base of te progressive movemetn ot the time, which used the democrats to terorize blacks in the south (Which they later ‘shifted’ things to the republicans).
they can distract you, like in the screwtape leters, but they cant actualy erase yet. so you can go and read about landry parish, the knights of the white camelia, and the terrorism of blacks to get them to vote democrat. its why they dont teach hayes tilden.
but the point is that the progressives wished to exterminate the black man. sanger was a progressive… and they also wished black men not to knwo their REAL HISTORY And place in america.
if they did, they would not join dems and progressives and destroy the only place that gave them freedom, not slavery…
but more importantly, the reason was to keep blacks and whites from reading the novel that emancipated blacks and fulfilled the designs of freedom embedded in the constitution!
the Constitution would stop being as communist progressive zinn revised, but as it was intended.
blacks today wold never walk down the street with a copy of uncle toms cabin in their hands. what would other blacks do to them for waling around with it?
Frederick Douglass praised the novel as “a flash to light a million camp fires in front of the embattled hosts of slavery”
well the answer is in the writings of the progressives, who people read but never read the original.
so the left did this… as part of the means to disillusionment Africans… so they abort, so they dont work and get bad reputations, so they set themselves apart, and so forth. alienation is a powerful tool for the revolutionary to get free bodies to do work for nothing.
For my part, I was never an admirer of Uncle Tom, nor of his type of goodness; but I believe that there were lots of old Negroes as foolishly good as he; the proof of which is that they knowingly stayed and worked on the plantations that furnished sinews for the army which was fighting to keep them enslaved.” James Weldon Johnson, a prominent figure of the Harlem Renaissance…
so a few progressive blacks redefined uncle tom, and what he means, and denied this history to africans.
remember Frederick Douglass was a slave, James Weldon Johnson was not. but remember obamas memory of a magazine where a man died his skin and stopped being black? how he was sure of it? but such an article never existed… so where did that memory come from.
During his six-year stay in Hispanic America he completed his most famous book The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man which was published anonymously in 1912. It was only during 1927 that Johnson admitted his authorship – stressing that it was not a work of autobiography but mostly fictional.
-=-=-=-=-
The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man by James Weldon Johnson is the fictional telling of the story of a young biracial man, referred to only as the “Ex-Colored Man”, living in post Reconstruction era America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The Ex-Colored Man was forced to choose between embracing his black heritage and culture by expressing himself through the African-American musical genre ragtime, or by “passing” and living obscurely as a mediocre middle-class white man.
i was taught about these writings and such in school..
and there were several of them. there was another piece that is closer to obamas memory
the story parallels obamas childhood enough to think that they would present him with the story very young.. not old enough to know fiction or not.
The Ex-Colored Man’s mother protected him as a child and teenager. Because of the money provided by his father, she had the means to raise him in a different environment than most other blacks. He was exposed to only upper-class blacks and mostly benevolent whites. After his mother’s death, his poor orphan status exposed him to a part of black life unknown to him while living a sheltered life with his mother. He adapted very well to life with lower-class blacks, and was able to move easily between the classes of black society. During this carefree period of his life, he was still able to teach music and attend church, where he came in contact with the upper class blacks. The Ex-Colored man living in an all black community discovered three classes of blacks; the desperate class, the domestic service class, and the independent workman. The Ex-Colored Man believed the desperate class consists of poor blacks that loathe the whites. The domestic service, domestic worker class consists of blacks that work as servants to the whites. The third class consists of well-to-do blacks that had no interaction with the whites. Many white readers, who viewed all blacks as a stereotype of a single class, are unfamiliar with the narrator’s description of class distinctions among blacks. Johnson’s description of the black classes also serves to show that blacks and whites also have the same human tendencies to seek social status.
blacks as classes means what? he is a marxist…
and remember the harlem renaisance was an intellectual group of marxists… “it was known as the “New Negro Movement”, named after the 1925 anthology by Alain Locke.”
Characterizing the Harlem Renaissance was an overt racial pride that came to be represented in the idea of the New Negro, who through intellect and production of literature, art, and music could challenge the pervading racism and stereotypes to promote progressive or socialist politics, and racial and social integration. The creation of art and literature would serve to “uplift” the race.
ok… so the communsits, socialist, progressives rewrote the narrative..
they dont celebrate douglass…
Stowe drew inspiration for the Uncle Tom character from several sources. The best-known of these was Josiah Henson, whose autobiography was originally published in 1849 and later republished in extensively revised editions after the publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.[11] Henson was born a slave in 1789.[11] He became a Christian at age eighteen and took up preaching.[11] Henson attempted to purchase his freedom for $450, but after selling his personal assets to raise $350 and signing a promissory note for the remainder Henson’s owner raised the price to $1000; Henson was unable to prove that the original agreement had been for a lesser amount (in america we had slavery light… we paid the slaves wages. its where the term slave wages came from. so some slaves were able to buy freedom… something that slaves of the arabs, moores, and others were never able to do)
and why henson..
and why dislike and hide this?
Shortly afterward Henson was ordered on a trip south to New Orleans, and when he learned that he was to be sold there he obtained a weapon and contemplated murdering his white companions, but decided against violence because his Christian morals forbade it. A sudden illness in one of his companions forced their return to Kentucky, and shortly afterward Henson escaped north with his family, settling in Canada where he became a civic leader
he was christian and moral, and so would not fit the communist ideal of rising up in a race revolution which would with social justice punish the whites, and so on..
to end justifies the means amoral people, he is a bad example.
those wishing to read what frederick douglas says about the three fifths can go to many sources.
but remember why progressives dont teach it, and we dont know it.
frederick douglass is a religious american, and was a well speaking black, and that does not suit them.
i would take the time to look for and read
Unconstitutionality of Slavery
Lecture Delivered in Glasgow, Scotland
26 March 1860
by
Frederick Douglass
[and note that if everyone was o racist, how did he get a world wide platform?]
its an amazing document and VERY relevant to today..
everything is in it that we have today, but in its cruder form….
In character and manliness that speech was not only deficient, I think, but most shamefully one-sided; and while it was remarkably plausible, and well calculated to catch the popular ear, which could not well discriminate between what was fact and what was fiction in regard to the subject then discussed, I do not hesitate to pronounce that speech [alleging that U.S. slavery is constitutional]
* false in statement,
* false in its assumptions,
* false in its inferences,
* false in its quotations even,
* and in its arguments,
* and false in all its leading conclusions.
Frederick Douglass won the debate…
but that paragraph preceding the list, shows the tactic is to gain your lead through emotion and leveraging the ignorance of the audience and their lazy thinking.
now please note something important..
On very many accounts, he who stands before a British audience to denounce any thing peculiarly American in connection with slavery has a very marked and decided advantage. It is not hard to believe the very worst of any country where a system like slavery has existed for centuries.
This feeling towards America, and towards every thing American, is very natural and very useful.
I refer to it now not to condemn it; but to remind you
# that it is just possible that this feeling may be carried to too great a length.
# It may be that this feeling may be too active, and lead the people of Great Britain to accept as true some things concerning America which are utterly false, and to reject as false some other things which are entirely true.
My assailant largely took advantage of this noble British feeling in denouncing the constitution and Union of America. He knew how deep and intense was your hatred of slavery. He knew the strength of that feeling, and the noble uses to which it might have been directed.
it was these same years that MARX was forming his ideas on reforming progressive ideas into a formal ideology and manifesto.
so the hatred of the US as to slavery, is falsely generated from europe…
I have often felt how easy it would be, if one were so disposed, to make false representations of things as they are in America; to disparage whatever of good might exist there, or shall exist there, and to exaggerate whatever is bad in that country.
I intend to show that this very thing was done by the speaker to whom I have referred; that his speech was calculated to convey impressions and ideas totally, grossly, outrageously at variance with truth concerning the constitution and Union of the American States.
so this ideological battel and falsehood fight has been going on for a long long time.
we are in round 14, not round 3
and before someone complains about LENGTH..
note that the SPEECH that people sat and listened to i its entirety is 19 pages long…
Here then are the several provisions of the constitution to which reference has been made. I will read them word for word, just as they stand in the paper, in the constitution itself.
Article 1, section 2, declares that representations and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.
Article 1, section 9.–The migration or importation of any such persons as any of the States now existing may think fit to admit shall not be prohibited [by] the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Article 4.–No person held to service or labour in one state under the laws thereof escaping to another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.
Article 1, section 8.–To provide for calling out the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Here then are the provisions of the constitution which the most extravagant defenders of slavery have ever claimed to guarantee the right of property in man.
These are the [sole] provisions which have been [fraudulently] pressed into the service of the human fleshmongers of America; let us look at them just as they stand, one by one.
You will notice there is
# not a word said there about “slave-trade,”
# not a word said there about “slave insurrections;”
# not a word there about “three-fifths representation of slaves;”
# not a word there which any man outside of America, and who had not been accustomed to claim [distort] these particular provisions of the Constitution, would ever suspect had the remotest reference to slavery.
I deny utterly that these provisions of these constitution guarantee, or were intended to guarantee, in any shape or form, the right of property in man in the United States.
But let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the first of these provisions, referring to the basis of representation and taxation, does refer to slaves.
We are not compelled to make this admission, for it might fairly apply, and indeed was intended to apply, to aliens and others, living in the United State, but who were not naturalised.
But giving the provision the very worst construction–that it applies to slaves–what does it amount to?
I answer–and see you bear it in mind, for it shows the disposition of the constitution to slavery–I take the very worst aspect, and admit all that is claimed or that can be admitted consistently with truth; and I answer that this very provision, supposing it refers to slaves, is in itself a downright disability imposed upon the slave system of America, one which deprives the slaveholding States of at least two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.
A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the constitution.
Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the constitution encourages freedom, by holding out to every slaveholding State the inducement of an increase of two-fifths of political power by becoming a free State.
So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not to slavery; for be it remembered that, the constitution nowhere forbids a black man to vote. No “white,” no “black,” no “slaves,” no “slaveholder”–nowhere in the instrument are any of these words to bo found,
so the fact that uncle tom is pejorative, says a lot.
and the fact that frederick douglass could give a 20 page speech to the common man, but our common man, cant wade through less. even worse, there are even worse writers and harder to read than me from that era…
“and what’s far more important is that it completely lacked any managerial or executive component”
yep… the management / exec team at my company would have done a better job… even though we don’t do anything with oil… But given a staff in the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who report to us (i.e., the president), the military, and an unlimited budget… I have no doubt we’d have done better.
No firebooms? Get me the airforce on the phone and tell em to dig up some napalm. 🙂
Artfldgr: I disagree. Estrich was a Hillary supporter, and although she threw her lot in with Obama like a good Democrat, she never really drank much of the Koolaid. She has continued to criticize him and the Democrat line around health care, and Obama’s war on Fox. IMHO, she does seem to have some sort of basic consciousness of the things she is denying.
neo… you always disagree with me on the GAME..
and it boils down to one knowing the game, and the other denying the game..
its fine points you dont see or get…
and when you do, you dont value them the way they are using them.
I disagree. Estrich was a Hillary supporter, and although she threw her lot in with Obama like a good Democrat, she never really drank much of the Koolaid
read the catechsm of the revolutionary… it explains that your emotioanl ties and all that MEAN NOTHING..
taht EVERYTING is calculated to support the progressive ends.
so what you think you see is reasonable behavior, what those in the know see, is someone compelled by their own thing to act for the party.
you do not understand how it works at that level, nor do you believe, nor do you want to. so you dont.
if a porcupine stood up against hillary, and she hated porcupines, her revolutionary position and status can only be preserved by following the party line.
even hillary did that. the reason was the first rule.
what you dont get is that if they violate these rules you dont know, the game shifts for them.
here is what she is following
her behavior over the years makes it clear to those in the know. and so the others will help and support her and so on. but like thomas. or reverend wright, etc.. there is no loyalty.
The revolutionist is a person doomed [obrechennyi, in older usage signifying also “consecrated”]. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.
so what you see and explain and rationalize not knowing has a pedigree that you can follow if you watch.
she doesnt have to believe, she only has to comply. when the powers shifted to obama, she shifts to obama.
hillary shifted to obama. she HAD to or lose her creds… she would instantly be seen as a person who might break and follow her own will.
The nature of the true revolutionist excludes all sentimentality, romanticism, infatuation, and exaltation. All private hatred and revenge must also be excluded. Revolutionary passion, practiced at every moment of the day until it becomes a habit, is to be employed with cold calculation. At all times, and in all places, the revolutionist must obey not his personal impulses, but only those which serve the cause of the revolution.
and so, she shifts.
they do whatever it is to win… zero loyalty, no morals, no sympathy, no sentimentality, not even the luxury of revenge.
EVERY successful person on the LEFT at the top is stuck in this mold.
its only clearly seen when they change sides… then like obamas frank, they are discarded…
estrich endeavors to be useful and not be used up.
they don’t play one side, they play BOTH sides.
and failure to understand this all is why we are all here discussing this and not getting it. why they got so far, why we are now really really in a bad place.
its not accidental…
if it was, you couldnt read about how its to be done and read about how the stages were met.
to catch a person between a hammer and anvil, you need to have a hammer and anvil.
estrich is the hammer, radicals are the anvil, you are being caught between unreasonable left, and reasonable left..
leaving no other choice but left.
study the principals of operation, and stop dropping the facts that they are colluding and crafting a world view for you.
in such an endeavor, estrich plays good cop to their bad cop.
I’m always suspicious of really beautiful women telling us we shouldn’t be worried about beauty.
Susan Estrich
i am really suspicious of people who follow an ideology of destruction which seeks as its only goal dominion over all people, when they act reasonably in their persuit of the unreasonable!!!
So many of us had hoped that the civil system might be an alternative for some women, where the burdens were a little bit less, and cases might be easier to prove.
Susan Estrich
yes, that sounds like someone who wants the truth to win, and not her side to win ideologically…
Women are not required in general to be named in rape cases because of the stigmas that go with being a rape complainant, and frankly, special burdens that rape complainants often face.
Susan Estrich
and so she is for the rights of the accused to be considered innocent, for how else do you reach such a position unless you assume the object of complaint is not innocent?
she sees women having more rights than men.
she sees and has talked about inequality before the law to achieve equal outcomes.
there is a reason why they arent doing to her what you said they were doing, and its not because she is lucky!!!
your not even applying your own knowlege!
No matter what their accomplishments, women in public life can only get the feminist stamp of approval if they toe the complete party line of the left; otherwise they are imposters.
so how does estrich get that stamp?
she isnt what she appears to be…
she puts a reasonable face on the unreasonable.
apply what you said above.
if they have the approval, and they are not attacked for their opposition, then they are imposters, but not to the feminists, to you.
if she actually was against them was not part of the game, as others, then they would attack her and ruin her.
its as simple as that to know..
the problem as i said is not knowing or denying.
its refusing to acknowledge so one does not have to deny. which is exactly what you did too.
you refuse to acknowlege that she is part of something that has rules to be a part of. then your refusing to add things up and get the answers..
after all, if you did all that work and the answer pointed to what you didnt want, now yuo have to go through the effort of some mental gymnastics..
but haven’t you ever bumped into women who refuse to hear and don’t let you talk negative things (or else your not friends)
give me time to go through estriches history, and i can show you what you dont know that they hide.
I’ve been doing these conventions for 20 years, and we used to at least have debates about issues. Nothing is happening basically at this convention, other than speeches.
20 years and she hasnt been baked by the people who will bake you for not aborting when they think you should (even if your completely in line with everything else).
you realize that her and hillary are alumni? (wellesly)
and her and obama are alumni? (harvard)
1976, Estrich was elected the first female president/editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review
hey didnt a certain person who is a very left progressive… have a similar position?
oh… and if she is not down on state slavery, why is she not pulling out the poison pen and teahing us about the progressives, their goals, and all that?
because progressive is the eye in the pyramid.
marxism and variants as well as feminism, are the steps just below. and the rest of the masses make up the bottom.
she cant write against the goals of Obama, since she serves the same goals.
watch over time…
According to the president’s budget proposal, deep cuts are required in healthcare, education, transportation and support for basic human needs to finance the war in Iraq. “Our priority is to protect the American people,” President Bush said after a Cabinet meeting this week devoted to the FY 2008 budget.
Not exactly. Our priority is not to protect the American people, but the Iraqi people. Otherwise, Bush wouldn’t be looking to save $100 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, and limit which children are eligible for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, in order to come up with the $141 billion that is to be allocated for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan next year — not to mention the total $623 billion for defense for 12 months. estrich…
so why is she not crowing about the new budget that is astronomically higher?
oh yeah… she is a progressive and so does not stand in the way of nationalizations and all that…
she just puts a reasonable mask on an unreasonable request.
Who does George Bush think he’s kidding?
How dumb does he think we are?
His priority is covering up his biggest mistake.
Bill Clinton lied about his mistake.
But George Bush is doing something even worse. He’s robbing every American to pay the price for his. Estrich
so why is she not railing…
1.4 trillion… still at war..
etc..
you have to look at the whole thing.
soviets who learned the truth had the same problem.. they grew up believing in something they shouldn’t have, and then when they found out, how do you let go of the shadow that was always there?
some just do a peter pan and sew it back on
Denial is simply the flat refusal to even treat anything contrary to what is believd as even worthy of consideration
how do you know its contrary if first you didnt take it in to consider it?
to determine contrary, one has to take it in.
but if one refuses to even hear it, or listen to it, then one ASSUMES its contrary, and avoids taking it in.
cant establish the state of information without examining the information. if you rely on others, then you didnt examine it, take it in, you avoided it. if you refuse to allwo people to discuss, as soviets did, then too, you avoid it.
no, i know the difference, i know that i cant stop thinking of white polar bears as long as i try.
For chrissakes,Art, why do you post such long winded diatribes? Who the hell wants to read that?
Art, I telling myself all the things you wrote this very afternoon.
I mean, I WAS telling myself all the things that you wrote of this very afternoon.
Proof reading is hard when you’re ADD.
There is alot of instruction and irony in that Uncle Tom became an Uncle Tom.
The thing that is so great these days about being female is that women don’t have to give a rat’s ___ what the ghetto feminist “establishment” thinks. Who cares? No one needs their “stamp” of approval for anything. American women at this moment are the most fortunate women in human history. It’s a fantastic time to be female, and if the professional feminists who think they are the gold standard to which we all aspire, don’t approve of some of us, big whoop.
Everyday I thank God I was born a woman in America and get to participate in life and society to the degree that my grandmothers and mother never could.
So big deal if Tina Brown, of all people, a professional glitzy gossip, who I confess I did read when she was editor of Vanity Fair a million years ago, (but I cannot bear her now with that ghastly website of hers Daily Beast, yuck), doesn’t like Sarah Palin. She’s only making herself look a bit sour, ungracious and pretty sophomoric at that.
She should be celebrating Palin’s accomplishments even if she disagrees with her. Rising tide lifts all boats.
Soupcon;
Yea, my mouse scroll wheel just wore out.
Julia NYC . . .
What you said! For America feminists, this is a great time to be alive. We won! And yet so many poor fools like Tina Brown don’t recognize victory when they see it.
They’re such idiots. I pity them.
Feminists are the most pathetic bunch of hypocrites in the history of politics. After 30 years of scorched earth tactics which left many men actually afraid of women in an office setting they queued up en masse to offer their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred orifices to Bill Clinton when he got in trouble for doing exactly what they said they were out to eliminate.
Continuing the thoughts of Artfldgr (regarding black history) and Julia NYC and Promethea (regarding feminism):
I too think its a great day for those of us who think that the causes of women and minorities (and all people) need to be liberated from the elitism of the progressives .
It is true that the history of women, of blacks, and of many others, did not begin with the emergence of progressivism during the late 19th and early 20th century. (See Artfldgr’s post above.)
On the other hand, I do think some credit should be given to the progressives in pushing through some of the changes that enhanced the position of women, blacks and minorities during the 20th century. But even there the record is more mixed than is usually noted. For example, a great deal of the energy and support for the civil rights movement came from progressives. On the other hand, it is usually not noted that the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts (’64 and ’65) would not have passed but for the majority of Republicans who voted for it.
Once the progressives did their bit, they then proceeded to appropriate for themselves the entire history of female and minority advancement. That there exists a world for women and minorities outside of the reservation of the “progressives” is often ignored in the media and academia. For example, the writer Ayn Rand is one of the most influential women of the twentieth century as an inspiration to supporters of libertarianism, individualism and the free market. Yet she is rarely mentioned in academia or in college courses dealing with either women or social science. Likewsie, wheras the African-American writer Zora Neale Hurston is mentioned, as is her most famous work Their Eyes Were Watching God , it is very rarely mentioned that her politics were strongly conservative Republican, anti-progressive, and anti-communist.
I get great pleasure in seeing the “progressive” elitists get all upset at the possibility that women, blacks, minorities, and others, are actually thinking for themselves. (As an American of Cuban background, I could include myself here.) This is especially so now that what remains of so-called “progressivism” is nothing more than moribind shopworn leftist nonsense. More power to these empowered conservative women.
To foresee just where the totally inexperienced and incompetent Obama is leading us (more properly frog marching us) I recommend reading the always illuminating and incisive comments of Theodore Dalrymple, for instance this week’s commentary from “City Journal,” here http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_otbie-sympathy.html
I love the Dalrymple.
Frog marching. That’a a keeper. Right up there with gobsmacked.
Nolanimrod: Great idea, but a little editing and it would be so much more forceful:
After 30 years of scorched earth tactics, they queued up en masse to offer their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred orifices to Bill Clinton for doing exactly what they said they were out to eliminate.
Now that’s good!
On the other hand, a good case can be made for the knave rather than the fool hypothesis:
A just released joint HHS/Dept. of Labor/IRS report estimates that within the first three years of Obamacare’s implementation, a majority–somewhere between 60% and 80% of existing, supposedly “grandfathered” employer health care plans–particularly those offered by small employers, will likely lose their exemptions under the rules of Obamacare, (and since it would be less costly for employers to pay the fines for not offering a health care plan to their workers rather than to pay even more for health care plans that they would now be forced to offer to comply with the requirements of Obamacare, employers would drop their employee health care plans and pay the fine), and workers would be forced out of plans they were largely happy with and into Obamacare (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/); the very thing that was predicted to happen (indeed, the very thing many critics said that Obamacare was designed to make happen), but that Obama very explicitly promised–over and over again–would not happen.
P.S.–I should have noted that, as of this moment, this story is a couple down from the first story on this website
The left controls Congress. There’s a massive anti-incumbent wave building. The Left is looking for excuses that will help deflect the wave.
This excuse is pretty lame (that “experience” is what has people mad), and tone-deaf. But it’s not directed specifically at Whitman and company. It’s trying to find protective armor for all the threatened leftist pols.
Just the MSM doing what it does. Badly. Yeah, I know it’s shocking …
Susan Estrich was a Hilary supporter. I think she knows exactly whom she is describing.
BTW, did anyone else notice that Catherine Crier does not know the difference between “Wall Street” firms and companies that actually make and sell things?