Boxer's Low Blow

[Stinger]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0


BOXER'S LOW BLOW

"January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.
Boxer was wholly in character for her party - New York's own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic - but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice."






That was outrageous. Can you imagine if a Rep had attacked a Democrat woman because she was childless. And on top of that it is a totally specious argument.



"

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."
Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Breathtaking.
Simply breathtaking.
We scarcely know where to begin.
The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman."



The Dems are showing their true tasteless color with this one. Will she be admonished for her totally outrageous behavior. Don't count on it.

BTW she has no immediate family because her parents died when she was young.

 

[Gibberish]

"Who pays the price?" to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

That is attacking Rice for being a childless woman? That more dead soldiers would not directly effect Rice's immediate family? I fail to see the attack.

To me it is saying that Rice simply does not have a personal stake in this war in regards to family. Because of this Rice does not have an emotional tie to the war, which she shouldn't have anyway. Boxer is trying to use Rice's non-emotional stake in the war against her, when I think it in fact helps her as she will not be blinded from the objective for personal emotional reasons.

I do agree this was a bad move by Boxer, but not for the stated reasons. It is my belief that emotional decision making is one point that makes the American public hesitate when voting women into more prominent decision making roles. Boxer is trying to shoot down Rice's stance because she seems to not be letting her emotions dictate her decisions.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

I fail to see how that could be construed an attack on Rice. This entire accusation reeks of the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Stinger]

"Who pays the price?" to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

That is attacking Rice for being a childless woman?

DUH! YES! She prefaced it by noting that she DOES have children.

To me it is saying that Rice simply does not have a personal stake in this war in regards to family.

Because she doesn't have children, which is a bogus phony arguement on it's face.

So what is Boxer implying ONLY people with children at stake should have a say?

Because of this Rice does not have an emotional tie to the war,

An how exactly do you draw that conclusion, that she has NO emotional tie to the war?

Boxer is trying to use Rice's non-emotional stake in the war against her,

Boxer is showing her ***. Too bad you don't watch Fox news in the morning they played the video, it was outrageous.

Again had a Rep used the fact that a Dem woman was childless as a political attack don't kid me that you wouldn't be outraged.

 

[Stinger]

I fail to see how that could be construed an attack on Rice. This entire accusation reeks of the bottom of the barrel.

"Oh Ms. Rice, you have no standing here because you are a childless woman".

spare me

 

[shuamort]

Well, she could've just been plain and said that no one would wanna touch Rice with their neighbor's dick and that's why she's childless. Still, both parts are true.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Well, she could've just been plain and said that no one would wanna touch Rice with their neighbor's dick and that's why she's childless. Still, both parts are true.

typical sophomoric remark. Send it to the basement, mods.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

"Oh Ms. Rice, you have no standing here because you are a childless woman".

spare me

By making a mountain out of a mole hill do you expect that it will take the attention off of the things that really are horrendous in our government and society?

There are far more offensive and astounding things going on than mentioning the simple fact that Rice is a childless woman and because of that she doesn't have as much of a stake in this war as someone who does have a child. I hardly see that as an attack.

Also, if you are trying to make a valid point, why do you have to reword the original quote in an attempt to make it more effectively prove your point?

 

[Gibberish]

DUH! YES! She prefaced it by noting that she DOES have children.

Which are here immediate family. Who do you think feels more of an impact of the war? Someone who looses a member of their immediate family or someone who does not?

Because she doesn't have children, which is a bogus phony arguement on it's face.

It is a valid statement but not one that Boxer should be making as a political stance. Rice shouldn't base her decision of the war on whether or not someone in her immediate family had died or not.

So what is Boxer implying ONLY people with children at stake should have a say?

No she was clearly stating that those that lose someone in there immediate family are paying a bigger price to the war effort then those that have not lost anyone.

An how exactly do you draw that conclusion, that she has NO emotional tie to the war?

Sorry I didn't mean she has NO emotional tie. I mean she does not have THAT (losing someone in her immediate family) emotional tie and THAT emotional tie should not effect her decision even if she did have it.

Again had a Rep used the fact that a Democrat woman was childless as a political attack don't kid me that you wouldn't be outraged.

I wouldn't at all. I would draw the same conclusion. The one making the statement is in the wrong.

 

[Gibberish]

"Oh Ms. Rice, you have no standing here because you are a childless woman".

spare me

Where is the quote by Boxer? I can't seem to find it.

 

[Stinger]

By making a mountain out of a mole hill do you expect that it will take the attention off of the things that really are horrendous in our government and society?

It was a specious attack, to make a bogus point with the Secretary of State. It is indefendable.

There are far more ................

Sure she could have called her too ugly.

Also, if you are trying to make a valid point, why do you have to reword the original quote in an attempt to make it more effectively prove your point?

To prove the point which seems beyond your comprehension, else just showing Dems can do and say anything and get away with it.

 

[Stinger]

Where is the quote by Boxer? I can't seem to find it.

Clearly I was elaborating on her statement for the benefit of those whose head it went right over.

 

[Gibberish]

Clearly I was elaborating on her statement for the benefit of those whose head it went right over.

Clearly you were directly changing her quote to meet your interpretation.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

It was a specious attack, to make a bogus point with the Secretary of State. It is indefendable.



Sure she could have called her too ugly.



To prove the point which seems beyond your comprehension, else just showing Democrats can do and say anything and get away with it.

This is such a lightweight issue and you continue to make it into a big deal. Again, it's obvious that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything to attack Democrats about. What makes it worse is that you had to change the quote in order to make it more effective and convenient for you. This is partisan hackery at its finest.

 

[Stinger]

Which are here immediate family. Who do you think feels more of an impact of the war? Someone who looses a member of their immediate family or someone who does not?

When did Boxer lose anyone in the war? Are you saying only those with immediate family have a say? Are you saying their say has more standing? Are you saying that in order to choose the right course for the nation requires that you have children in the war?

Boxer made a specious point and in doing so insulted the Secretary of State.

It is a valid statement

What is valid about it.

OK do you have children in the war. If not then what you say about it has no bearing.

No she was clearly stating that those that lose someone in there immediate family are paying a bigger price to the war effort then those that have not lost anyone.

And? What does that have to do with the Secretary of State and what she/he is doing?

Sorry I didn't mean she has NO emotional tie. I mean she does not have THAT (losing someone in her immediate family) emotional tie and THAT emotional tie should not effect her decision even if she did have it.

And you think it is prudent that decisions about our national security should be made on emotional basis. That the leaders should decide we should not go to war because their children might be killed?

 

[Stinger]

Clearly you were directly changing her quote to meet your interpretation.

Clearly not as I noted. Now that you know.................

But how else would you interpret it?

 

[Cremaster77]

This is what construes for "breathtaking" and "outrageous"? Being found with $90k in bribes in your freezer is outrageous. Propositioning teenage pages is breathtaking. This farcical outrage is childish and speaks volumes about those feigning disgust.

 

[Stinger]

This is what construes for "breathtaking" and "outrageous"?

When Boxer levied that at the Secretary of State as a valid argument to rebut her position...........absolutely.

'You don't have children therefore your position is invalid'

It was absurd and outrageous. She should apologize.

Else let's just start polling all the congressmen and women and those without children of the age to serve no longer have a voice in the matter.

It's as absurd as the argument that whenever a President puts our military in harms way, his/her children should be on the front line.

 

[Gibberish]

When did Boxer lose anyone in the war? Are you saying only those with immediate family have a say? Are you saying their say has more standing? Are you saying that in order to choose the right course for the nation requires that you have children in the war?

Boxer specifically said she did not: "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.". I have not and am not saying having the experience of losing someone in the war makes your position more valid. It does not. That is specifically why I disagree with Boxer making this statement.

Boxer made a specious point and in doing so insulted the Secretary of State.

Yes she did. She is trying to hurt Rice's position by claiming Rice will not exercise the utmost caution since the war is not directly effecting her immediate family.

As I have said in almost ever post I made on this topic. It was a reckless statement made by Boxer. She is implying that the Secretary of State should be allowing her personal emotions to dictate her stance on a war.

What is valid about it.

If Rice has no immediate family in the war or has not lost immediate family in the war she does not have a personal stake in the war regarding her immediate family. This is what Boxer said, and that is a valid statement. Though I disagree with the environment she made it in and the reason for making it.

OK do you have children in the war. If not then what you say about it has no bearing.

I have said a number of times that that is not the case. Someone who loses someone in the war has no more or less valid opinions then anyone else.

And? What does that have to do with the Secretary of State and what she/he is doing?

Nothing. Boxer is clearly trying to make it into something though, which she shouldn't be doing.

And you think it is prudent that decisions about our national security should be made on emotional basis. That the leaders should decide we should not go to war because their children might be killed?

When did I say that? I clearly stated twice that personal emotional ties to the war should have no effect on any decision of the war made by a government official, and I will elaborate by saying, especially if those decisions directly effect the military effort.

What I disagree with in this thrad is that stance that Boxer was directly trying to debunk Rice simply because she has no children.

 

[Gibberish]

Clearly not as I noted. Now that you know.................

But how else would you interpret it?

This is how I would:
"Ms Rice, you have no personal ties to this war regarding the well being of your immediate family. Because of this the safety of the soldiers is not your greatest concern."

As I stated, I do not agree with Boxer's statement.

 

[Cremaster77]

For those who actually care about the truth, here's a link to the entire exchange and not those edited by people with specific agendas.

"Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a personal price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families ... not me, not you."

Rice replied: "I fully understand the sacrifice that the American people are making, and especially the sacrifice that our soldiers are making, men and women in uniform. I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it."

Boxer interrupted: "Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions.

"And the fact that this administration would move forward with this escalation with no clue as to the further price that we're going to pay militarily ... I find really appalling."

It's outrageous and shocking that Boxer would attack anyone who has young grandchildren or children who are too old to serve. Can the Democrats possibly sink any further?

 

[Stinger]

To assume that someone who is so involved in the decission to send troops into harms way has no personal stake is an insult to that person on it's face. Beyond that then what was Boxer's point? Why did she try to use the fact that Rice is childless to disqualfy and dismiss her position? Boxer didn't say children in Iraq, just children.

Boxer should appologize and I'd love to hear her explaination of how feminism has changed from encouraging women to put off childbearing and entering the workplace and having highlevel careers into somehow being dismiss because they have no children.

 

[Stinger]

Boxer interrupted: "Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions.

Where does Boxer get off assuming Rice doesn't pay an emotional price every time she sees the casualty list? And again what was her point, only those with children in the war have standing to decide what the country does?

It was a sorry attempt to dismiss and disqualify her.

Imagine if a Republican had said a similar thing to Reno after the deaths of all the children at Waco. The Dems and the left would have demanded censure.

 

[Cremaster77]

Where does Boxer get off assuming Rice doesn't pay an emotional price every time she sees the casualty list? And again what was her point, only those with children in the war have standing to decide what the country does?

Look at the quote again. She says "I know you feel terrible about it." Doesn't that mean she acknowledged that Rice pays an emotional price? Boxer's point was that it's one thing to feel generally bad about the situation, it's another to have family members directly affected. It's not that only people with family members there should have a say, but perhaps Rice's stance would be different if she actually had a child over there. Some might say that it's better that the people making the decision about war are better off being emotionally detached from those decision, but it's not "outrageous" to say that those decision might be different depending on if you have children there or not. Boxer even admits that she herself doesn't have children or grandchildren there so she can't know what it feels like to actually have one of them go there.

Stinger, I understand that you need to root for your team at every chance and you'll grasp at any straw to slam Democrats, but your focus and trivial points detracts from your ability to point out true problems with the government and the Democrats, such as the Democrats refusal to recognize that Social Security will soon be a financial mess. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

The White House fires back.

White House spokesman Tony Snow on Friday called Boxer's comments "outrageous."

"I don't know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it's outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism," Snow told FOX News Talk's Brian and The Judge.


FOXNews.com - White House Spokesman Blasts Sen. Boxer's Exchange With Secretary Rice - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum