Joe Scarborough Thinks He’s Found A Way To Shut This Whole Hillary Thing Down

Filed in National by on January 28, 2014

Yes, I write a lot on women issues.  I’m a woman and I have a 16 year old daughter, so I write what I know.  But I don’t know what to make of this.  Here’s Joe Scarborough pretending to think out loud over whether “invoking Monica Lewinsky against Hillary Clinton could be an appropriate tactic.”

“If Hillary Clinton attacks the Republican Party’s handling of women, and treatment of women and disrespect for women, and suggests they’re misogynists et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, it does seem to be a fair question to ask right now, a few years out, does the media have a responsibility to say, ‘Well, let’s see what happened when you were in the White House, and how women were treated when you were in the governor’s mansion and the White House?’ Is that fair?” the ‘Morning Joe’ host asked Monday morning, as quoted by Mediaite.

[...]

“Does this not compromise Hillary Clinton’s ability to bash Republicans as being terrible toward women, misogynist, et cetera?” he asked.

How exactly would Republicans use Bill Clinton’s infidelity against Hillary Clinton?  How does that look?  Would they say she was a-okay with infidelity because, if she wasn’t then she would have divorced him?  Would they say she’s sexist and misogynist because she’s married to a man who had an affair?  Most likely they would do what they love to do and tell Hillary to sit down and shut up… maybe they could even tell her to go make them a sandwich.

But whatever route they choose they will end up putting forth this message:  Ladies, you are merely an extension of your husbands.  Your opinions will only be considered if they align with your husband’s opinion and behavior.  If they don’t, well… then you may not speak on certain subjects.

How would that work?  If your husband had an affair, then no women issues for you!  If your husband had a drug addiction, then no war on drugs for you!  If your husband is rich, no income inequality speeches from you!

The only way Republicans can put forth this tactic is if they start with the premise that women are not autonomous – that every thought, idea, policy position they have must be linked to their husband’s words or behavior.  They will be judged by their husbands’ actions and then handed a list of issues they will be permitted to discuss… or not discuss.

And Joe Scarborough thinks this might “compromise Hillary Clinton’s ability to bash Republicans as being terrible toward women, misogynist, et cetera?”  Really?  That’s the game plan?

From where I’m sitting I see this tactic making the GOP look more anti-woman than they already do.  (Is that possible?)  In my post about Huckabee’s libido comment, I told you that I thought Republicans wouldn’t be able to censor themselves when it came to women and women issues.  And here we are again.  And I’d bet good money that Scarborough’s pretend musing over this tactic is high up on the Republican talking point list.  It’s no coincidence that Joe picked up the ball Rand Paul tossed onto the field – while pretending he didn’t.

But I’m still wondering what the GOP plan for this attack looks like?  How would it work?  Would Hillary utter the words “War on women” while citing the Republican’s endless attacks on reproductive rights and then the GOP would… what?  Yell, “Foul!”  Seriously, how would they stop her from discussing the war on women? Would they say, “I’m sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but you aren’t allowed to address this issue because your husband had an affair.”  Or maybe, during every interview when they’re questioned on how their policies on women contrast to Hillary Clinton’s they would simply say, “I don’t have to answer that because Bill Clinton had an affair.”

Can you tell I’m lost?  Even better, can you help me out?

 

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason330 says:

    Republicans like Rand Paul and Joe Scarborough view “being terrible toward women” through a weird lens that they understand but doesn’t make sense to most Americans. I think it has to do with chivalry and opening the door for ladies, and “helping” them by reminding them when to shut their pie holes.

    So I’m sure Clinton will have no problem pointing out that the GOP’s misogyny expresses itself in a huge number of practical ways – from pay equity to healthcare. Also, if the GOP wants to bring Bill Clinton (the most popular living politician who presided over widespread economic expansion) into the mix by talking about the blow job – I’m all for that.

    It always ends badly for Republicans when they talk about blow jobs.

  2. Dorian Gray says:

    Here’s a question. What do Joe Scarborough, Bill O’Reilly, Al Sharpton, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, the fat loud-mouth Ed guy who thinks he’s Joe Hill, Wolf Blitzer and Shep Smith have in common with Vanderpump Rules, Bigfoot Hunters, Shahs of Sunset, Millionare matchmaker, Kardashian show, the one with the real estate brothers, or that other one…

    It’s a trick question… because the answer is everything.

    The ZZ Top duck decoy guy and Mike Huckabee are the same thing. Television personalities. It’s not like Scarborough is Walter Cronkite. I think you’re giving it way too much relevance. It’s the babling of an ex-US Rep for bum fuck Florida trying to remain relevant as a ‘reality’ show host. I find Tim Gunn’s political commentary more salient.

  3. Tom McKenney says:

    Anybody who has heard Bill Clinton speak of Hillary realizes how much he loves and admires her. I believe this is a real strength when it comes to women voters.

  4. puck says:

    I don’t’ think Hillary needs to discuss the war on women, any more than candidate Obama needed to discuss the war on blacks. Just being a woman is all she needs to do to make the point about the war on women. There will be plenty of surrogates to make the point more explicitly.

  5. pandora says:

    I can’t help but think this line of attack is on the GOP agenda. Rand Paul put it out there and Scarborough ran with it. The boy’s club thinks they have a winner here. They simply will not be able to help themselves, because a) it’s Hillary Clinton, and b) it’s how they talk about women.

    Jason is correct. Their lens is warped. And when he mentioned chivalry he hit a chord. These guys long for the days when women were their fathers’ property until they became their husbands’ property… and came with a dowry! – along with a specific set of behavioral/societal rules. They like the days when a non-virgin was labeled “ruined” and cast out of good society. They like the idea of women issues consisting of worrying about crossing a mud puddle without a man’s jacket.

    Take a look at what they’re doing to Wendy Davis:

    Critics accused her of embellishing her life story and telling a tall tale of transformation from a young, divorced mother who persevered through Harvard Law School. A recent Dallas Morning News article stressed Davis’ then-husband paid her hefty education bill, and suggested that was a significant biography change. Conservatives pounced and announced Davis’ entire life story was a lie.

    Yet as far back as 1996, Davis had publicly credited her husband for paying for her Ivy League tuition. So what’s the big deal? And why the Fox-led obsession with trying to dismantle Davis’ admirable background of hard work and financial success?

    Not content to portray Davis as being loose with biographical facts, GOP commentators quickly focused on her alleged shortcomings as a parent. Indeed, the initial debate about Davis’ background immediately morphed into a right-wing pile-on about what an awful, uncaring and overly ambitious mother Davis has been over the years.

    Why the prolonged freakout? Because while attending Harvard, Davis’ daughters lived with her husband in Texas. “Because she was more eager to go to Harvard than she was to be there for her kids,” wrote National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg, who mockingly referred to Davis, an attorney, businesswoman, and 50-year-old politician, as “a girl.”

    Via Twitter, RedState blogger Erick Erickson teased, “Just think, if Wendy Davis gets elected, she could create ‘take your daughter to her dad’ day.” A New York Post column headline declared, “She Gave Up Her Kids: Davis Has No Future In Politics,” and on Fox, Ann Coulter compared Davis to Anna Nicole Smith, the former Playboy playmate who made headlines for marrying an 89-year-old tycoon. (She later died of a drug overdose.) And yes, while her Fox News hosts giggled, Coulter dismissed Davis as a “kept woman,” suggesting the Democrat candidate was someone’s well-off mistress.

    But what did any of that sexist mudslinging have to do with Davis’ qualifications to be the next governor of Texas, which is the campaign she’s currently running? And had any previous (male) gubernatorial candidate in Teas history ever been subjected to orchestrated attacks about parent skills, or ever publicly condemned for not spending enough time with his young children while he attended law school and built a prosperous career for his family?

    Of course not.

    The idea that they’ll be able to contain themselves and not go after Hillary with an incident they impeached Bill on- and still salivate over – strikes me as unrealistic.

  6. bamboozer says:

    It’s all a measure of the terror Hilary strikes in the Republicans, their afraid of not only her winning but what she would do when in office. At this point they will say almost anything in hopes of dragging her down. This will fail but expect many more in coming years.

Switch to our mobile site