Republicans vote down a resolution that was basically a gimme for puffing up your own ass: Honoring mothers on Mother’s Day.
No, I’m not kidding. Congressional Republicans all tossed in a “yay, mothers!” vote to get it on the record that they officially liked mothers, and then asked for a revote so they could express their true feelings about the be-vagina-ed hellbeasts. (Yes, I read the whole article and am aware that it was childish tactical manuevering, for those eager to leave a comment before you finish the post. Please finish the post before you correct me.) You didn’t think they’re “pro-life” because life and motherhood are sacred, right? At the end of the day, remember this: Bitches are always trying to get away with something, so come out swinging even on the most mundane things. After all, honoring mothers on Mother’s Day started in the U.S. as part of that hippy-dippy peace movement crap, which resulted in women getting the right to vote. So it’s not for nothing that congressional Republicans think first you respect motherhood, and then you’ll be treating women like they’re human.
The explanation of all this is that it was a tactical move to bring the House to a standstill. But was it purely a coincidence that they took a stand against mothers?
19 Responses to “Slippery slope non-misogyny”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with mothers and everything to do with parliamentary shenanigans. Repub congresscritters have been “filibustering by vote changing” to prevent the Democratic majority from actually accomplishing anything. More at the Carpetbagger Report.
I think this is either pissy political posturing or has something to do with small government, and is unrelated to mothers. It could had just as likely been about Father’s day or Groundhog’s day. Although with groundhogs day I can picture them having to make the same vote over and over, then they wake up the next morning and discover that they have to take the vote again.
The latter (and admittedly less likely situation) is kind of like how Ron “GOOGLE RON PAUL 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB WATCH LOOSE CHANGE AND AGREE WITH ME OR I’LL CALL YOU NAIVE” Paul voted against giving Charles Schulz a congressional medal not because he hates Snoopy, but because it wasn’t the responsibility of congress to hand out silly awards for PR purposes. Although that’s more of the paleo-conservative philosophy that is pretty absent any more from Washington outside of the John Birch offices..
Sure, Cyan. But how does it make it better that they’re so shallow that the “anything” they’ll keep Democrats from doing is honoring mothers on Mother’s Day.
Let us enjoy the sheer stupidity of it. Like bean says, I doubt they’d have pulled this stunt if their own fatherhood was being honored with a fluff bill.
I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with mothers and everything to do with parliamentary shenanigans.
Part of the point of parliamentary shenanigans is to trap the other side into casting a vote that looks bad, not to trap yourself when pulling such a maneuver.
Right, nothing to do with mothers. Could have been Father’s day, or Groundhog’s day. Wasn’t, of course, but by Ceiling Cat could’ve been. Remind me, did they do this to Christmas or Easter resolutions?
Maybe they will do this next month and surprise me. Unlikely we’ll remember to discuss it then:)
Amanda, I don’t think an accurate description of the Repubs’ motives excuses what they did, which really was disrespectful to mothers. And the “anything” I’m talking about isn’t the Mother’s Day resolution — it’s the mortgage bill and the war spending bill, both of which the Repubs did succeed in delaying. (I should have mentioned that part sooner.)
Tyro, you want competence? These are Repubs we’re talking about.
OneirosDreaming, I’d bet it would have happened to any symbolic resolution scheduled before the mortgage bill and the war spending bill, including a resolution honoring Father’s Day.
My link to the Carpetbagger Report didn’t work, so here it is again: House Republicans take a firm stand — against Mother’s Day. (Works in preview.)
I tend to agree with Cyan that they would have shot down Father’s Day for the same reasons they did Mother’s Day. I may be way out in left field here, but I think most people view both of those holidays as filler holidays (as compared to Easter or Christmas, which I think they would have been a lot more hesitant to vote against). Though I think the Democratic party should fully exploit this nonsense in the run-up to November. As I think was pointed out at the Carpetbagger, it’s not enough for a standalone ad, but if you tack it on to a bunch of other more serious criticism, it helps with a pile-on effect.
Considering the man-boy love shown by most of the Republicans, I would not assume any vileness to be beyond their ken.
I love how the Republican’s talk about non-partisanship only when they aren’t getting their way.
Kinda like two year old children who think sharing is appropriate only when someone shares with them, not when they are supposed to share with others.
Our government is run by a bunch of people with the emotional quotient of toddlers.
*sigh*
That’s f’n hilarious. And the fact is, that is the least petty ridiculous thing in the article; which means they voted for motherhood before they voted against it just to draw attention to the fact that they’ve switched to a tantrum-based political strategy. Heckuva job, guys.
I’m moving to another planet.
These lame declarations from congress are as silly now as they were when the rethugs used them against us.
I agree that the vote switchflipflop of the republicans exposes their callous disregard for principle, but really, couldn’t we at least vote for impeachment? Just once, to put everyone on the friggin record???
And the hell of it is, the Democrats are just too politically incompetent to make hay of this. Republicans voting against mothers! Simple truth, and it’ll be ignored by the Dems.
Even though I know the media won’t give the Dems the publicity they provide the Republicans, I find it frustrating that the Dems don’t even seem to see the possibilities that are out there. No matter what it is, the Dems can screw it up. I’m confidently awaiting their failure to win the Presidency this year.
Mold, so funny. Gay bashing and homophobia is okay as long as we direct it at Republicans.
No hate like liberal hate….
I’m not so sure it is outright misogyny (I’m under the impression that this is being consistently done), but I wouldn’t put it past them.
Thus, one thinks it’s more of a happy bonus.
Actually, “man-boy love” is not so much to do with homosexuality as it does paedophilia.
Just saying.
I wish all non-policy resolutions would be prohibited by Congressional rules. There are real issues that need to be addressed. Congress does not have time for any of this. No more honoring mothers, or fathers, or firefighters, soldiers, precocious schoolchildren, etc. We might make an exception for honoring other nations and their heads of state, but only because that’s a diplomatic tool with potentially real results.
Actually, “man-boy love” is not so much to do with homosexuality as it does paedophilia.
I think you’re right, but you need to tell that to Mold. Even the interns, while young, and possibly below the age of consent, were way older than pre-pubescent kids, and so…. no pedophilia.
It always amuses me how in the name of “irony”, we on the left will make the same bigoted, sexist statements that we would excoriate someone on the right with.
It’s because we are full of shit, and what we should respect is free speech, even speech that offends.
I won’t dispute that you yourself are full of shit, but for your future reference, “free speech” does not mean “speech free from criticism.”
Wow, Grammar RWA, way too many negatives and double negatives in your statement. Explodes my tiny brain.
But let’s see, I wrote:
“we should respect is free speech, even speech that offends.”
And you seem to want to negate that. Is that right? So you are saying:
“we don’t need to respect speech that offends?”
or
“we should respect is free speech, even speech that offends unless it criticizes us.”
Wow. Totally cool. I’d like to hang out at your parties.
Either that or you actually agree with me, and just cannot read.