Should the NOW defend Condi Rice?

[win_in_06]

Since she has been criticized by this Russian Politician for being a single woman?

<snip>


Speaking with Pravda this week, Zhirinovsky chastised Rice for calling on Russia to "act responsibly" in supplying natural gas to Ukraine.

The fascistic pol attributed that "coarse anti-Russian statement" to Rice being "a single woman who has no children."


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/382490p-324713c.html

[liberal N proud]

1. WHY?

She sure as hell would do nothing for NOW, in fact she would probably help the regime kill the organization.

[win_in_06]

2. She is still a U.S. citizen and our SecState

Can the NOW let this statement go without comment?

<snip>

"If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear," Zhirinovsky ranted on. "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied.

[TomClash]

7. Zhirinovsky is Russia's Limbaugh nt

[knitter4democracy]

12. Exactly.

He's best ignored, not catered to. He's a nutcase and says anything he can think of to get press.

[ComerPerro]

3. Its sorta like the ACLU helping Limbaugh

they should do it because it would be funny and ironic.

And, it proves that they are interested in helping people, not settling scores.

[win_in_06]

13. I also think it hurts their credibility if they say nothing

[neoblues]

4. Well, I've heard Condoleeza is a woman...

If she is, I suppose it would be appropriate for a women's organization support her as consistent with their charter.

Even so, as I'm personally biased against peope who are liars, cheats and thieves, people who lack ethics, who are egotistical, who cause the world great harm, who have no real skill or effectiveness in their careers but who are promoted to prestigious, historically important positions based on nothing more than having a boss who, being an imbecile and rewarding people not for performance, but for personal loyalty involving dishonest behavior... And, since that's just a few of the shortcomings for which I believe this person is a poster-child, I don't see that she deserves any assistance. Besides, it's doubtful that NOW would be able to provide any useful support and to do so may very well work against them in the long run.

Even so, I'm all in favor of letting NOW decide for itself what it should do and take whatever risks they feel comfortable with. Whether or not I see a need, and I don't, if they do... whatever. Though they probably should require a genetic verification testing of Ms. Rice, just in case she was a woman trapped in a man's body. Of course, NOW might still want to support him/her if they believe she was a woman in a man's body...

:sarcasm:

[acmejack]

5. Is Condi eligible for NOW membership?

I am not really sure that Secretary Rice meets all the membership criteria...

[creeksneakers2]

6. NOW does not exist to defend women who are insulted

I don't know why the RWs think that the purpose of NOW is out to defend every woman who is the object of negative comments. Now defended Anita Hill. That's the only one I can remember. Now defended Hill because of the relevance to a threatening supreme court nomination.

Even if NOW sent out a press release defending Rice, NOW's comments would not be reported. Why would they be? The press doesn't cover NOW's opinions, or anyone else's unless they have a strong influence on the outcome of hot topics.

Rash Limbaugh often rants, "Where is ______ (Hillary, NOW, etc) on this?" That's the source these nutty RW ideas about lefties being bound to promote RW talking points, and the press being bound to create an uproar beneficial to the RW on cue.

[Cerridwen]

8. If NOW were to release any statement in response, I would hope

it would be to point out the hypocrisy of a woman who is obviously part of the conservative, republican movement, the foundation of which promotes the ideology that women belong in the private sphere of home and children, and yet is in the very public sphere of politics and war. And that, perhaps, condi should practice what she preaches and get her ass back in the kitchen and start making babies for the Fatherland Homeland the cause.

[bluestateguy]

9. I think they have better things to do

What Zhirinovsky said was in bad taste, but why should NOW stick their neck out for someone who serves a president that opposes everything NOW believes in?

Rice has shown an insufficient gratitude toward women's and minority civil rights groups for the last 20 years. Defending her from sexist remarks should not be NOW's priority. I'm sure there will be plenty of conservative groups who will say something in her defense, and that's fine. I wish them well with that.

[MetaTrope]

10. She's single?

I thought she had a husb--president.

[flordehinojos]

11. what on heaven's earth for?

she does not deserve it.
her marital status does not become an automatic defense weapon.
she would not appreciate it.
she would scorn it.
she would laugh at it.

in short, NO!