BOXER'S LOW BLOW

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.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"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."

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.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

I think it is a great opportunity to isolate and identify the personal emotional basis that underlies many Democratic arguments. They have been used so often, that they seem to be accepted by the public as a valid basis upon which to make decisions about public policy. (Ref. Nancy Pelosi evoking "the children" as a major theme in her swearing in ceremony.) It colors their rhetoric about the environment (speaking "for the environment",) often enters debate in the form of personal attacks and seems to justify action.

Public policy should be made based on body of clean, robust fact with any assumptions examined, with conclusions arrived at with logic and consistency. Further, the relationships of government to citizen and federal to state set forward in the Bill of Rights firmly in mind.

A physician does not operate on his own family members. A law makers does not make law about issues in which he has a personal stake. (Ethics and law in California dictate that you recuse yourself from the decision - particularly where your economic interest is at stake.)

I am very concerned about this trend, which is often evident in certain Democratic female legislators, to justify decisions and actions based on emotion - particularly nurturing emotion. In my opinion, this is not an acceptable basis upon which to make decisions about war, the commitment of troops and strategy.

Before you jump on me as anti-female, I am a female legislator on the local level.

You said:
I think it is a great opportunity to isolate and identify the personal emotional basis that underlies many Democratic arguments. They have been used so often, that they seem to be accepted by the public as a valid basis upon which to make decisions about public policy. (Ref. Nancy Pelosi evoking "the children" as a major theme in her swearing in ceremony.) It colors their rhetoric about the environment (speaking "for the environment",) often enters debate in the form of personal attacks and seems to justify action.

Public policy should be made based on body of clean, robust fact with any assumptions examined, with conclusions arrived at with logic and consistency. Further, the relationships of government to citizen and federal to state set forward in the Bill of Rights firmly in mind.

A physician does not operate on his own family members. A law makers does not make law about issues in which he has a personal stake. (Ethics and law in California dictate that you recuse yourself from the decision - particularly where your economic interest is at stake.)

I am very concerned about this trend, which is often evident in certain Democratic female legislators, to justify decisions and actions based on emotion - particularly nurturing emotion. In my opinion, this is not an acceptable basis upon which to make decisions about war, the commitment of troops and strategy.

Before you jump on me as anti-female, I am a female legislator on the local level.

I agree with your analysis with one exception - (Ref. Nancy Pelosi evoking "the children" . . . . Change to "child surviors of abortion".

Acronym Man!! Tah Dah!

Demo nostrums! ergot civility

Callous

Invecctive

Voiced

Lowminded

Idiotic

Torturous

Yelping

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.