Janet Napolitano has no life per Ed Rendell

ChadLover · 12-03-2008, 09:43 AM

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/campbell.brown.rendell/index.html#cnnSTCText[/url]

What a jerk:

[QUOTE][B]Rendell:[/B] Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it

[I]Wow. Now, I'm sure Gov. Napolitano has many qualifications for the job beyond having no family, and therefore the ability to devote 20 hours a day to the job. Watch Campbell Brown's commentary »

But it is fascinating to me that that is the quality being highlighted here as so perfect. C'mon. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is married with two grown children. His predecessor, Tom Ridge, had a family. Anybody remember a debate about whether they would have trouble balancing the demands of work and family?[/I][/QUOTE]

chicadeel · 12-03-2008, 11:10 AM

Lets give old Eddie some credit.

At least he didn't say she's pretty smart and has big boobs.:)

mallamalla · 12-03-2008, 11:11 AM

[QUOTE=ChadLover;2891734][url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/campbell.brown.rendell/index.html#cnnSTCText[/url]

What a jerk:[/QUOTE]

its only sexism when a (R) is next to your name. When you have a (D) next to your name, you are immune. When a (R) calls Hilary Clinton a b!itch = sexist pig. When a (D) calls Sarah Palin a "bimbo" = funny or the truth.

chicadeel · 12-03-2008, 11:25 AM

[QUOTE=mallamalla;2891837]its only sexism when a (R) is next to your name. When you have a (D) next to your name, you are immune. When a (R) calls Hilary Clinton a b!itch = sexist pig. When a (D) calls Sarah Palin a "bimbo" = funny or the truth.[/QUOTE]

For some people(me), it's annoying no matter who does it.

VincenzoTestaverde · 12-03-2008, 11:28 AM

I guess having no life has helped her. She's a very popular dem governor in a republican state.

Warfish · 12-03-2008, 11:48 AM

[QUOTE=mallamalla;2891837]its only sexism when a (R) is next to your name. When you have a (D) next to your name, you are immune. When a (R) calls Hilary Clinton a b!itch = sexist pig. When a (D) calls Sarah Palin a "bimbo" = funny or the truth.[/QUOTE]

+1 There is, in the media, a double standard IMO.

fukushimajin · 12-03-2008, 12:00 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2891901]+1 There is, in the media, a double standard IMO.[/QUOTE]

There is, when Palin was attacked Republican media outlets cried sexism. When Hillary was attacked Republican media outlets asked "will she cry sexism when dealing with the Russians?"

Fish, you know Palin was dragged over the coals because she deserved to be. She never even belonged in consideration for VP.

Warfish · 12-03-2008, 12:17 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2891924]She never even belonged in consideration for VP.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree.

However, that does not change the fact that she recieved a different kind of treatement than she would have, had she been a Democrat.

This is not an either/or argument. Both cases (unqualified and unfairly treated) can both be equally true, and I think (IMO) they are.

chicadeel · 12-03-2008, 12:21 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2891901]+1 There is, in the media, a double standard IMO.[/QUOTE]

There is just a plain old double standard.

JetsFan2012 · 12-03-2008, 12:22 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2891924]There is, when Palin was attacked Republican media outlets cried sexism. When Hillary was attacked Republican media outlets asked "will she cry sexism when dealing with the Russians?"

Fish, you know Palin was dragged over the coals because she deserved to be. She never even belonged in consideration for VP.[/QUOTE]

What a load. Palin's qualifications and experience deserved to be questioned, sure.

What she didn't deserve was to have her qualifications as a mother and the quality of her family's life dragged through the mud. Or the constant issue with how much she spent on clothes. Or the relentless jokes about her upbringing.

There's no question both women were victims of sexism, btw.

fukushimajin · 12-03-2008, 12:41 PM

[QUOTE=pauliec;2891958]What a load. Palin's qualifications and experience deserved to be questioned, sure.

What she didn't deserve was to have her qualifications as a mother and the quality of her family's life dragged through the mud. Or the constant issue with how much she spent on clothes. Or the relentless jokes about her upbringing.

There's no question both women were victims of sexism, btw.[/QUOTE]

Personally I believe family should always be left out -- also affairs, trysts and youthful drug-use. But any VP candidate with a pregnant, unmarried, teenage daughter would have been similarly savaged. Imagine if it had been Obama's kids (who knows, could still happen). Also, she basically stood up there and said "judge me by who I am" so she invited the kind of personal criticism she got. The clothing story is true as far as I know.

I will say that the "what will you say when the Russians are mean?" argument is legitimate.

Batmans A Scientist · 12-03-2008, 12:46 PM

[QUOTE=pauliec;2891958]What a load. Palin's qualifications and experience deserved to be questioned, sure.

What she didn't deserve was to have her qualifications as a mother and the quality of her family's life dragged through the mud. Or the constant issue with how much she spent on clothes. Or the relentless jokes about her upbringing.

There's no question both women were victims of sexism, btw.[/QUOTE]

The clothing thing is a terrible example. It was (in theory) leaked by McCain sources. I don't remember her upbringing brought into question at all. In fact, I don't know a thing about her upbringing.

The quality of motherhood thing is true, and it was unnecessary, but you are kidding yourself if a democrat (M or F) had an unmarried 18 year old girl pregnant while running for VP and didn't get destroyed by the right for it.

Warfish · 12-03-2008, 01:00 PM

[QUOTE=Batmans A Scientist;2891991]but you are kidding yourself if a democrat (M or F) had an unmarried 18 year old girl pregnant while running for VP and didn't get destroyed by the right for it.[/QUOTE]

Right Wing Radio? Yes.

The Mainstream Media? Now who's kidding who. ;)

Tyler Durden · 12-03-2008, 05:30 PM

I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?

2foolish197 · 12-03-2008, 05:35 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2891924]There is, when Palin was attacked Republican media outlets cried sexism. When Hillary was attacked Republican media outlets asked "will she cry sexism when dealing with the Russians?"

Fish, you know Palin was dragged over the coals because she deserved to be. She never even belonged in consideration for VP.[/QUOTE]neither did obama...for prez

fukushimajin · 12-04-2008, 10:58 AM

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2892343]I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?[/QUOTE]

On further consideration, I agree. It may not even be rude -- it depends on how it was said and on their relationship. It may seem odd, but in the world of political wonks (and a lot of other geek personalities) this might even be a kind of compliment. One of the best threats in politics is to say "You don't want to go to war with me over "X", "X" is all I think about and I have no life." It is a back-slapping way of saying someone is really good at their job.

JetsFan2012 · 12-04-2008, 11:03 AM

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2892343]I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?[/QUOTE]

I think the implication is that if she had a family, it would be her duty to stay at home with her husband and kids to be the caregiver, and wouldn't have enough time to give to the job. Unlike Chertoff who has a family, that's ok because he's a guy.

jetstream23 · 12-04-2008, 11:30 AM

Completely sexist and unfortunate to hear that comment. By the way, it's completely true, she really doesn't have much of a life outside work and there are rumors that she takes a liking to da ladies. Eh, as long as she secures the border I'm cool.

ChadLover · 12-04-2008, 11:39 AM

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2892343]I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?[/QUOTE]

The difference is did anyone say Tom Ridge would not be a good head of homeland security because he does have a family? It is never even mentioned with men implying that women can not handle both.

Tyler Durden · 12-04-2008, 05:30 PM

Saying this is sexism, they way some of you have explained it.. is a stretch IMO. It's not like he said she shouldn't take the job, because she should be looking to settle down and start a family.. now that's sexist.

12-03-2008, 09:43 AM	#1
ChadLover All Pro Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Monmouth County Posts: 2,137	Janet Napolitano has no life per Ed Rendell [url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/campbell.brown.rendell/index.html#cnnSTCText[/url] What a jerk: [QUOTE][B]Rendell:[/B] Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it [I]Wow. Now, I'm sure Gov. Napolitano has many qualifications for the job beyond having no family, and therefore the ability to devote 20 hours a day to the job. Watch Campbell Brown's commentary » But it is fascinating to me that that is the quality being highlighted here as so perfect. C'mon. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is married with two grown children. His predecessor, Tom Ridge, had a family. Anybody remember a debate about whether they would have trouble balancing the demands of work and family?[/I][/QUOTE]

12-03-2008, 11:10 AM	#2
chicadeel All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,234	Lets give old Eddie some credit. At least he didn't say she's pretty smart and has big boobs.:)

12-03-2008, 11:11 AM	#3
mallamalla Rookie Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 714	[QUOTE=ChadLover;2891734][url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/campbell.brown.rendell/index.html#cnnSTCText[/url] What a jerk:[/QUOTE] its only sexism when a (R) is next to your name. When you have a (D) next to your name, you are immune. When a (R) calls Hilary Clinton a b!itch = sexist pig. When a (D) calls Sarah Palin a "bimbo" = funny or the truth.

12-03-2008, 11:25 AM	#4
chicadeel All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,234	[QUOTE=mallamalla;2891837]its only sexism when a (R) is next to your name. When you have a (D) next to your name, you are immune. When a (R) calls Hilary Clinton a b!itch = sexist pig. When a (D) calls Sarah Palin a "bimbo" = funny or the truth.[/QUOTE] For some people(me), it's annoying no matter who does it.

12-03-2008, 11:28 AM	#5
VincenzoTestaverde laughing at the Pledge Against America Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 9,162	I guess having no life has helped her. She's a very popular dem governor in a republican state.

12-03-2008, 11:48 AM	#6
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=mallamalla;2891837]its only sexism when a (R) is next to your name. When you have a (D) next to your name, you are immune. When a (R) calls Hilary Clinton a b!itch = sexist pig. When a (D) calls Sarah Palin a "bimbo" = funny or the truth.[/QUOTE] +1 There is, in the media, a double standard IMO.

12-03-2008, 12:00 PM	#7
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;2891901]+1 There is, in the media, a double standard IMO.[/QUOTE] There is, when Palin was attacked Republican media outlets cried sexism. When Hillary was attacked Republican media outlets asked "will she cry sexism when dealing with the Russians?" Fish, you know Palin was dragged over the coals because she deserved to be. She never even belonged in consideration for VP.

12-03-2008, 12:17 PM	#8
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2891924]She never even belonged in consideration for VP.[/QUOTE] I completely agree. However, that does not change the fact that she recieved a different kind of treatement than she would have, had she been a Democrat. This is not an either/or argument. Both cases (unqualified and unfairly treated) can both be equally true, and I think (IMO) they are.

12-03-2008, 12:21 PM	#9
chicadeel All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,234	[QUOTE=Warfish;2891901]+1 There is, in the media, a double standard IMO.[/QUOTE] There is just a plain old double standard.

12-03-2008, 12:22 PM	#10
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2891924]There is, when Palin was attacked Republican media outlets cried sexism. When Hillary was attacked Republican media outlets asked "will she cry sexism when dealing with the Russians?" Fish, you know Palin was dragged over the coals because she deserved to be. She never even belonged in consideration for VP.[/QUOTE] What a load. Palin's qualifications and experience deserved to be questioned, sure. What she didn't deserve was to have her qualifications as a mother and the quality of her family's life dragged through the mud. Or the constant issue with how much she spent on clothes. Or the relentless jokes about her upbringing. There's no question both women were victims of sexism, btw.

12-03-2008, 12:41 PM	#11
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=pauliec;2891958]What a load. Palin's qualifications and experience deserved to be questioned, sure. What she didn't deserve was to have her qualifications as a mother and the quality of her family's life dragged through the mud. Or the constant issue with how much she spent on clothes. Or the relentless jokes about her upbringing. There's no question both women were victims of sexism, btw.[/QUOTE] Personally I believe family should always be left out -- also affairs, trysts and youthful drug-use. But any VP candidate with a pregnant, unmarried, teenage daughter would have been similarly savaged. Imagine if it had been Obama's kids (who knows, could still happen). Also, she basically stood up there and said "judge me by who I am" so she invited the kind of personal criticism she got. The clothing story is true as far as I know. I will say that the "what will you say when the Russians are mean?" argument is legitimate.

12-03-2008, 12:46 PM	#12
Batmans A Scientist Watching the American East Championship All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Manhattan, NY Posts: 8,515	[QUOTE=pauliec;2891958]What a load. Palin's qualifications and experience deserved to be questioned, sure. What she didn't deserve was to have her qualifications as a mother and the quality of her family's life dragged through the mud. Or the constant issue with how much she spent on clothes. Or the relentless jokes about her upbringing. There's no question both women were victims of sexism, btw.[/QUOTE] The clothing thing is a terrible example. It was (in theory) leaked by McCain sources. I don't remember her upbringing brought into question at all. In fact, I don't know a thing about her upbringing. The quality of motherhood thing is true, and it was unnecessary, but you are kidding yourself if a democrat (M or F) had an unmarried 18 year old girl pregnant while running for VP and didn't get destroyed by the right for it.

12-03-2008, 01:00 PM	#13
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Batmans A Scientist;2891991]but you are kidding yourself if a democrat (M or F) had an unmarried 18 year old girl pregnant while running for VP and didn't get destroyed by the right for it.[/QUOTE] Right Wing Radio? Yes. The Mainstream Media? Now who's kidding who. ;)

12-03-2008, 05:30 PM	#14
Tyler Durden Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31,171	I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?

12-03-2008, 05:35 PM	#15
2foolish197 i suspect hanky-panky All League Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: astoria Posts: 4,528	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2891924]There is, when Palin was attacked Republican media outlets cried sexism. When Hillary was attacked Republican media outlets asked "will she cry sexism when dealing with the Russians?" Fish, you know Palin was dragged over the coals because she deserved to be. She never even belonged in consideration for VP.[/QUOTE]neither did obama...for prez

12-04-2008, 10:58 AM	#16
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2892343]I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?[/QUOTE] On further consideration, I agree. It may not even be rude -- it depends on how it was said and on their relationship. It may seem odd, but in the world of political wonks (and a lot of other geek personalities) this might even be a kind of compliment. One of the best threats in politics is to say "You don't want to go to war with me over "X", "X" is all I think about and I have no life." It is a back-slapping way of saying someone is really good at their job.

12-04-2008, 11:03 AM	#17
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2892343]I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?[/QUOTE] I think the implication is that if she had a family, it would be her duty to stay at home with her husband and kids to be the caregiver, and wouldn't have enough time to give to the job. Unlike Chertoff who has a family, that's ok because he's a guy.

12-04-2008, 11:30 AM	#18
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,607	Completely sexist and unfortunate to hear that comment. By the way, it's completely true, she really doesn't have much of a life outside work and there are rumors that she takes a liking to da ladies. Eh, as long as she secures the border I'm cool.

12-04-2008, 11:39 AM	#19
ChadLover All Pro Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Monmouth County Posts: 2,137	[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2892343]I'm confused, where is the sexism? Rude maybe.. but saying someone has no life has nothing to do with there sex, does it?[/QUOTE] The difference is did anyone say Tom Ridge would not be a good head of homeland security because he does have a family? It is never even mentioned with men implying that women can not handle both.

12-04-2008, 05:30 PM	#20
Tyler Durden Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31,171	Saying this is sexism, they way some of you have explained it.. is a stretch IMO. It's not like he said she shouldn't take the job, because she should be looking to settle down and start a family.. now that's sexist.