Patty Bellasalma, the head of the California chapter of N.O.W., has clarified it all for us as to where she stands on the infamous "whore" comment applied to Meg Whitman by someone in Jerry Brown's entourage (likely Brown's wife). She's fine with that because, in her words, Meg Whitman is a "political" whore.
Make no mistake, if a Republican candidate or his staffer had called a female Democratic candidate a whore, Ms Bellasalma and the whole N.O. W. apparatus would be in an uproar. This is just one more example of what this group's real agenda is- liberal Democratic politics and abortion rights.
Keep in mind that this is an organization that remains silent over the abuse of women in the Middle East, a practice that has been carried over to the West. They say nothing about stonings in Iran. They refused to add their voice to a congressional measure condemning the UN selection of Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women.
Now Meg Whitman gets called a whore on tape by someone speaking directly to Brown, whom N.O.W. supports, and Bellasalma simply states that Whitman is, in fact, a "political" whore.
What if someone were to say that Patty Bellasalma is a "political" whore?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Like I said before, I think it is more accurate to say the Whitman is a political pimp. She's not selling herself. She's trying to whore the state of California. I wish these faux liberals would get their terminology straight.
Incidentally, Erin Manning refers to surrogate mothers as "reproductive prostitutes," so I suppose we can't hold NOW to a more stringent standard.
Siarlys,
You can't whore the state of California. It was whored decades ago.
And I don't know how you define Meg Whitman whoring the state of California. Since she as yet has held no office, she has not whored anything.
Brown whored California when he was governor when he allowed the unions to organize govt workers.
Generally a whore RECEIVES money for services rendered. As I understand your critique of public sector unions, they received payment FROM California.
Incidentally, there is some validity to criticism of public sector unions. I wouldn't want to abolish them. State employees are entitled to basic protection, and to the extent they perform a needed function, taxpayers are not entitled to their services at a discounted rate. But, nobody can pay pensions with money that doesn't exist, and no government function should be maintained or expanded merely because it provides jobs to a major campaign contributor. (The prison employees' union is the most flagrant example).
Meg Whitman, as I said before, asked the state of California "would you sell yourself for $100 million?" It appears the voters of California have higher standards than that.
Post a Comment