Friday, January 12, 2007

Condi Attacked for Being Childless

As much as I hate to link an article in the New York Post tabloid, and despite knowing how most childfree people feel abut this administration and the war, I couldn't quite let this one slide.

DEMS BURN A 'KIDLESS' RICE
"Condoleezza Rice came under a shocking Democratic attack yesterday - as a childlesswoman who can’t understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq. In a bitter personal assault on the secretary of state during her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, anti-war Sen. Barbara Boxer fumed that Rice didn't comprehend the "price" of the war.

"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I under stand it, with an immediate family," Boxer (D- Calif.) ranted.
. . .
"I visit them. I know what they're going through," said Rice, who has never been married and has no children."
Boxer does have children and a grandchild, none of whom are military age. She is also a strong pro-choice advocate. As with many liberals, our 'choice' only seems to extend to when we want to have children, not if.

Well, OK, the Post may well be blowing the comment a bit out of proportion. But when even the stalwart Washing Post reports that
"A ferocious Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), not[ed] that the childless Rice is not at risk of losing her own offspring in Iraq,"
the implications of the statement seem to be clear no matter which side you're on.

Technorati Tag:

4 comments:

Tyldak Kilsek said...

With respect, I submit that the NY Post is presenting Senator Boxer's quotes very much out of context. I listened to the whole exchange on the radio, and it sounded very different to me than in what you presented here and in what the NY Post wrote.

Law Geek said...

I suspect you are right, which is why I did state that they were blowing it out of proportion. I don't trust the NY Post one wit. I do tend to trust the Wash Post, and their characterization of the statement, though less extreme, made me think there was some, lesser truth to it.

However, I will defer to someone who listened to the whole exchange, which I did not. I can believe that wasn't what Boxer meant, especially when I go to the transcript and read her statements that none of them will pay the price.

It is true - the elite rarely do. I spend my days in the palest of ivory towers, and am constantly amazed at how theoretical, academic it all is. A dear friend's position as an elisted in the Marines brought that into glaring light - at best, the folks here know an officer from West Point.

Perhaps what we can take from this exchange, as childfree people, is that people do notice when such criticisms take place, even when they are hinted around and perhaps when they aren't intended. Are we moving toward a place where attacking someone's childless status is a 'low blow'? I sure hope so. In any case, such attacks do still occur.

Mercurior said...

i think the childfree or childless, are a good thing in politics, they would be there to make the right decision for everyone, not just their kids, they can be dispassionate about everything and make the most logical and best laws, pleas. etc

kalliope said...

Although the press is taking Senator Boxer's comments out of context, it must be said that the assumptions she makes towards a woman without children is very typical. Somehow those with children believe they have the more acute moral compass.