Sister Boogie Woman Rising

image


Republicans are quite vexed, in this pre-election period, that they have been smeared with the dastardly War on Women rep.  And who could blame them?  Without getting into the nits and gnats of the history of misogyny and sexism, they certainly didn’t invent such a thing [although they did invite the Church People into their tent and, I think it’s fair to say, the Church People did have a hand in inventing it].

Be that as it may, Republicans certainly never have gone out of their way to actually help or encourage or empower women, either.  And now, before the GOP has had a couple of decades to recover from the first Black president, they are being forced to mobilize against the spectral notion of a first female president.

The Republican Party is scared to death of Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton has “Boogie.”

Let’s let Lily Tomlin, her own self, remind us why that’s so frightening . . .

So.  Let the hilarity ensue because it’s awfully hard to fight against something you can’t fathom.

Take Sen. Rand Paul, for example . . .
Rand Paul has decided to demonstrate his presidential mettle by relitigating the Monica Lewinsky Affair.  Either Rand is confused about which Clinton is running or maybe he expects Hillary to take to her fainting couch at the mere mention of “that woman’s” name.

And no amount of WTF! reactions will deter him.  Sen. Paul took not one, but two swats at this knuckleball, the second of which almost connected—it’s about money, and who has a lot [the Clintons] and who has less [the Pauls].

Here’s the senator explaining why Democrats can’t accuse Republicans of a War on Women if they associate with Bill Clinton:

They can’t have it both ways.  And so I really think that anybody who wants to take money from Bill Clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do. In fact, I think they should give the money back.

Good plan, Rand.  Let’s only accept political donations from gentlemen.  Better yet, how about if we run all adulterers out of Congress? and, good luck to you, sir, running the country with five guys . . .

In a rare moment of cogent pragmatism, wise old Karl Rove, counselled that:

Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country.

I tend to agree—Paul’s “big brainstorm” is rather lame and illogical because a) Bill Clinton is not running for office, b) the affair never hurt Bill or Hill’s polling much from the day it broke up to the present day and c) dredging up Monica Lewinsky threatens to build sympathy for Hillary Clinton especially among those coveted women voters.

But, demonstrating the latitutude of strategic thinking under the GOP Big Top, RNC head cheerleader, Reince Priebus, gave Paul a big “thumb’s up,” saying:

I think we’re going to have a truckload of opposition research on Hillary Clinton, and some things may be old and some things might be new. But I think everything is at stake when you’re talking about the leader of the free world and who we’re going to give the keys to run the United States of America.

Of course, it’s Priebus’ job to tell Republicans that their every crackpot idea has threads of genius running through it but there are plenty of other signs, too, that the GOP is about to dedicate its time, resources and political capital to tilting at a wildly popular opposition candidate rather than building any sort of 21st century policy platform.  Again.

And, once again, they will lose. 

But not because of their ill-conceived strategies, Victorian core principles or the peculiar demands of their sociopathic base.

Nope, they’ll lose because Hillary’s got boogie.  And they don’t.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go troll the brand new Benghazi Investigation website that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence [oxymoron alert] put up, yesterday to keep Benghazi fresh in our minds for the next few Hillary-packed years.

Feel the boogie?

Posted by Bette Noir on 02/12/14 at 10:44 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '16Hillary ClintonNutters

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

It takes a very delicate touch to pull off a campaign against a woman that is based partly on the fact that she’s got icky girl cooties, without being obvious about the icky girl cooties part.  A delicate touch is one thing these guys don’t have, so the full-on raging misogyny is going to be a sight to behold, on top of being a huge motivating factor for a certain portion of the voting public. 

Obviously that can go both directions, but I’m thinking more along the lines of the increased AA turn-out that occurred because of attempted voter disenfranchisement. Nearly every woman in this country has experienced some ugly misogyny at some point in their lives, so, please proceed, morons.

I tend to agree—Paul’s “big brainstorm” is rather lame and illogical because a) Bill Clinton is not running for office, b) the affair never hurt Bill or Hill’s polling much from the day it broke up to the present day

And really, the affair is something he and his wife need to sort out. While sin is a sin is a sin, in terms of actual politics, an affair has nothing on say denying women birth control (for ANY reason), slut shaming women, refusing to sign equal pay into law, voting against reauthorizing the Violence Against Woman Act, and all the other things the GOP has been doing to deny women basic HUMAN dignity and protections.

As a short-range tactic against Bill Clinton’s considerable fundraising value, Rand Paul’s retroactive penis-policing might make sense with the “values voters” crowd. As a long-range tactic against Hillary Clinton—

Nope, that’s just wrong. If anything, if she turns it back on him with “How dare you judge my personal choices and attack my family?” he will quickly discover he is in the wrong seat, if not the wrong pew, or the wrong church, entirely. And he best not pretend he has a good record with women’s issues himself if he can’t back it up. (Newsflash: no he can not.)

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main