The party of choice and women’s lib. is now the party of the children.
It was a strange sight on television, but it made for some of the best photos Washington has ever witnessed. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the incoming Speaker of the House and second in line to the President, surrounded by a score of children during the passing of the gavel ceremony from House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH). Then came sound bites about how Pelosi had single-handedly broken the “marble ceiling” of politics for young girls and how the Congress would now focus all of its attention on the children of America.
Both Pelosi and Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) have now incorporated rhetoric about children and motherhood into their daily repertoires in an attempt to soften their domineering and somewhat abrasive personalities to the American electorate.
Democratic initiatives have also been repackaged into kid-friendly terms. Obsessive hearings about the conflict in Iraq are not for political gain but “for our children and grandchildren.” The same has been said about alternative energy initiatives, the raising of the minimum wage to $7.25 over 2 years (and the economic insanity this entails), stem cell research funding, and college loan programs. All of it is for the kids. Never mind the millions of and millions of voters who don’t have children or how policy initiatives will impact (gasp) adults.
The implication, of course, is that Republicans could care less about children. Apparently, a policy of strong national defense, low taxes, low unemployment and record home ownership is anti-child. According to the left, if you’re not for massive social programs at home and defeatism abroad, you, my friend, are anti-child.
The latest hit came yesterday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During questioning by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rice was lectured: “Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price.” Boxer continued: “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.
You're [Rice] not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
If you have no children, you cannot understand the implications of Iraq policy. What?!
Although the usual leftist approach of disqualifying someone from having a differing opinion due to personal reasons (“you can’t criticize Cindy Sheehan!) is tried and tested, Boxer’s outrageous comment builds on the theme of one party for the children and their alternate against children.
So much for a new tone in Washington.
