About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Yet again, media figures respond to a Pelosi controversy with attacks on her looks

May 18, 2009 8:51 am ET

SUMMARY: Commenting on the controversy surrounding what Nancy Pelosi was told about the use of harsh interrogation techniques, numerous media figures have resorted to attacking Pelosi's looks, for example, by characterizing her as being incapable of "human facial expression," referring to her "fashionable" "Botox shots," and calling her a "hag."

75 Comments

Commenting on the controversy surrounding what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was told about the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques, numerous media figures have resorted to attacking Pelosi's looks. Specifically, in the past several days, media figures have characterized Pelosi as being incapable of "human facial expression," referred to her "fashionable" "Botox shots," and called her a "hag." Media Matters for America has compiled the following examples:

  • During the May 17 edition of CNN's State of the Union, CNN contributor Alex Castellanos claimed that "if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, we'd see she'd be embarrassed, because, right now, she is in a very Nixon-like position."
  • In his May 17 Townhall.com column, Doug Giles wrote: "Either Nancy Pelosi is lying her backside off regarding her knowledge of the CIA's irrigation for information techniques, or one of the side effects of a high dollar Botox habit includes severe short-term memory loss." Giles further wrote: "In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. (What do you think old Nancy is doing here? Is she Botoxing? Does she have selective amnesia? Perhaps, a senior moment? Or is she revving up the engines on her BS Express?)."
  • During the May 15 broadcast of his radio show, referring to Pelosi, Neal Boortz said he was going to talk about "how fun it is to watch that hag out there twisting in the wind."
  • During the May 11 broadcast of his program, Rush Limbaugh said of Pelosi: "All right, all right. It wasn't a lie. It's a fashion statement. She wears Armani clothes -- fashionable; Botox shots -- fashionable. She's against waterboarding -- fashionable. Of course, after 9-11, she was for waterboarding. That was fashion then." On May 15, Limbaugh claimed that during her May 14 press conference, Pelosi was "shaking." He added: "Well, that could be Botox withdrawal. I don't want to be too hard on the shaking."

Additionally, during the May 13 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, co-host Eric Bolling responded to criticism of his comments about Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), saying:

BOLLING: I woke up this morning, and they told me I was one of [MSNBC host] Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World." I was "worser" -- number two. [Fox News host] Greta Van Susteren, a wonderful lady, was worse. OK, here we go. Here was the problem.

This was supposed to be calling out people who wouldn't come on Happy Hour. We want them to come on Happy Hour. We'll take you. We'll take you, Timmy Geithner. We'll put you in left field this time because you're in left field. We'll take [Federal Reserve chairman Ben] Bernanke. This -- that's all this was all about. But he had a problem with me putting Barney Frank, Representative Barney Frank, as catcher.

Now, look, I come from a baseball past. We play -- listen, what am I going to do? Put Nancy Pelosi as a catcher? She'll get hurt. She's got all that plastic surgery. That would be terrible for her.

Media Matters previously documented media figures frequently resorting to attacking Pelosi's looks while discussing her. For instance:

  • On the January 26 broadcast of his program, Limbaugh claimed that if Pelosi "wants fewer births, I have the way to do this -- and it won't require any contraception: You simply put pictures of Nancy Pelosi -- like, for example, the picture that [Internet gossip Matt] Drudge has of Pelosi right now on his website. Put pictures of Pelosi in every cheap motel room in America today. That will keep birthrates down because that picture will keep a lot of things down."
  • On the September 17, 2008, broadcast of his Minneapolis radio show, discussing Pelosi's reported response of "No" when asked whether "Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street," Chris Baker stated: "Yesterday, they ask her, 'Do Democrats have any responsibility here?' And what does she say? 'No.' Another reason why it's very rare to find a woman worthy of serving in political office." Moments before, Baker had said of Pelosi, "Get another facelift, lady."
  • On the June 30, 2008, edition of his radio program, Michael Savage said of Pelosi: "It's Mussolini at work -- Mussolini in a skirt with bad rouge; Mussolini if he came back and wore ugly clothing and put on bad makeup and had too much Botox. He would be calling for the Fairness Doctrine, assuming he would still own the winery and the bad restaurant chain." Savage previously referred to Pelosi, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) as "yentas." He later asked his "board operator" if he would rather "be waterboarded for 30 seconds or eat Jane Harman's ravioli" and whether he'd rather "be waterboarded or eat Nancy Pelosi's tortellini."
  • During the August 16, 2007, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, radio host Mark Williams referred to Pelosi as "Nancy Botox."
  • During the October 31, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said of Pelosi: "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.' "
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 9:33 am ET)
      6  
      Yep. They got nothin'. If she was liberal and looked her age, she'd be an old hag. Since she looks all of five years younger, it's all about the botox. Of course, it's never about the POLICIES - just the orientaion. As if they say "liberal" enough, people are going to have some kind of epiphany. But for all their hatred of her, do they ever point to any ACTUAL POLICIES, ACTUAL BILLS, ACTUAL VOTES? No. Never. Abortion, maybe. And that's IT. They can't actually demonstrate WHY she's "not in the interest of the American People" other that to just repeat the word "liberal" ad nauseam, as if it's some kind of epithet, and make fun of her appearance. And they wonder why they lost. And they think that being MORE like LImbaugh will help them win. I don't know who I love more for leading this party: John Boehner for his ineffectual blundering or Rush Limbaugh for his invective blustering!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Stargnoc (May 18, 2009 10:13 am ET)
           
        Rush Limbaugh is so hoottt!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 10:24 am ET)
          2  
          "You are either lying, blind or mad." ~Edmund Blackadder
          Report Abuse
          • Author by carlileb5935 (May 18, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
               
            I think it was a joke. The point is-- who are these guys to talk? That's what's so funny about their sexism.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
              2  
              Well yeah, I know. Normally I wouldn't quote Edmund Blackadder to refute a serious point. Obi-Wan Kenobi maybe, but Edmund Blackadder is almost alwasy quote in a sarcastic context.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (May 18, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
                2  
                I loved the blackadder series! I even got a hoot out of the blackadder christmas carol. I still think that stuff was Rowan's best. Mr. Bean? eh.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mary59 (May 18, 2009 7:50 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Rowan could do a great job playing a right-wing hack, if he was so inclined. He already has the part down with his mean, child-like Mr. Bean...
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 19, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Personally? I think Mister Bean is sophomiric piffle. It's mildy amusing at best and it wears thin fast. BLACKADDER on the other had is shear comic genius. And except for the 4th Series (during WWI) I would say that the first three Edmunds (Prince, Lord, Butler) AND the Edmund in both the Cavalier Years and at the END of Xmas Carol ALL play the historical equivalent of "Right-Wing Hacks", just from a more British perspective than an American one.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (May 18, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
        3  
        It's the old 'attack the messenger' that is so popular with people on the right.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (May 18, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
        2  
        If she was liberal and looked her age, she'd be an old hag.

        You mean like Rep. Foxx?

        http://partyofjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/virginia-foxx.jpg

        But she's not an old hag for how she looks, but for what she says:

        "During debate on a bill that would make hate crimes out of violence against gays based on Jeebus-based bigotry like the kind the Party of Jesus peddles at every opportunity, North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx said out loud that Matthew Shepard was not killed because he was gay."
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 18, 2009 9:37 am ET)
      4  
      Rush Limbaugh has a lot of nerve making fun of cosmetic procedures, surgical or otherwise. When Limbaugh was last married (Was it the third time?), the wedding performed by Justice Clarence Thomas, it was widely reported at the time that Limbaugh and his bride had both undergone cosmetic surgery to freshen their looks to start their marriage. Apparently the plastic surgery didn't do very much in making their marriage last.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 9:55 am ET)
        2  
        Well, you can put lipstick on a pig, but...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (May 18, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
           
        it was widely reported at the time that Limbaugh and his bride had both undergone cosmetic surgery to freshen their looks to start their marriage.

        yeah, that surgery is only good for girth, not length.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (May 18, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
        1  
        it was widely reported at the time that Limbaugh and his bride had both undergone cosmetic surgery to freshen their looks to start their marriage.

        yeah, that surgery is only good for girth, not length.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 19, 2009 8:03 am ET)
          1  
          I think he was trying to counteract depth.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (May 18, 2009 10:08 am ET)
      3  
      The've decided that she has been properly convicted as a criminal. This is their idea of proper conduct towards a convicted democratic criminal.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 11:53 am ET)
        2  
        Putting aside the whole trial and evidence thing, sure.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Janus303 (May 18, 2009 10:27 am ET)
      1  
      It's not just the right-wingers I'm sad to say. Last week I was driving along listening to Mario Solis Marich on Denver's AM 760 and he had a guest on talking about torture who said it was impossible to tell if Nancy Pelosi was telling the truth because "all she can do is that smile." I can't remember the exact words nor who the guest was, but I remember being horrified that it was coming from our side.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 18, 2009 10:59 am ET)
        1  
        Of course it's not just the right-wingers; talk-show hosts want to make people laugh and listen, then get mad when people don't take them seriously, and even the mainstream media is sensationalist and tabloid-y more than to-the-point these days.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 11:50 am ET)
        6
      I agree. References to people's physical beauty or lack thereof or whether or not it's natural or enhanced are seldom if ever germane to the issues. Nancy is guilty of smiling to cover up her true feelings. In this situation it looks particularly odd, but I consider commenting on it inappropriate unless the speaker has some expertise and a take on Nancy’s presentation that might make it relevant. The body kinetics expert O’Reilly has on has tended to find Nancy’s presentation nervous but sincere. There’s an example of appropriate commentary and it falls out in favor of Pelosi.

      I am reminded of the totally inappropriate way the Left treated the woman that headed the Florida Election count in 2000. Virtually every source on the left had mean spiteful things to say. They did the same with Linda Tripp and others in the Clinton sexual harassment issues. Women’s beauty faults or failures were considered fair game and the height of humor then. I hope none of you will be so hypocritical as to suggest that the Left does any better job on this than the Right, but it’s fair to say, right here and right now, it’s the Right that is misbehaving.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by elkmenn (May 18, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
        2  
        Thanks for this post. I agree that NP seems to always present a nervous smile. Having said that, attacking people on looks shows complete desperation and lack of thoughtful input on policy. Furthermore, does the Right really think it's a credible attack, anyway? As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I actually think Pelosi is one of the more attractive people in Congress; certainly the best-looking SotH. Who would you rather look at? Tip O'Neill? Newt? Denny? Jim Wright? Get real! Regardless of party affiliation, none of them are/were all that pleasing to the eye.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (May 18, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
        4  
        "I am reminded of the totally inappropriate way the Left treated the woman that headed the Florida Election count in 2000. Virtually every source on the left had mean spiteful things to say."

        I won't bother commenting much on your post here... except to ask you to offer up links to prove your assertions here... once done, we can then compare hateful/hurtful comments and see where they come from all the time to not likely to have occurred but very seldom.

        If there is proof that 'virtually' every source on the left did in fact say the things you claim... then I would be interested to know who he, she, or they are, so that I can condemn them for acting like a right-winger.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (May 18, 2009 7:05 pm ET)
            2
          Here is a start. I remember the spiteful and hateful sniping from everyone from SNL to the 11pm yucksters. Oh and add Carville and Begala in on that also.

          Slate

          Slate didn't bash her as far as I know, I just posted that because they reference her bashing in the article. ;)

          [quote]"They had trucks in Florida bringing the ballots to Tallahassee. In fact, it's the same trucks they used to bring the makeup to Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris." —Jay Leno

          "It's cold out. It's even cold in Florida. So cold today that Katherine Harris put on a third layer of makeup." —Jay Leno

          "Katherine Harris is in the middle of her 15 minutes of fame. Here's stage one of the 15 minutes of fame: Public ridicule. Stage two: The beauty makeover. Stage three: Posing nude for Playboy. Stage four: Becoming Mrs. Larry King." —David Letterman[/quote

          Don't forget Wonkette:
          Wonkette

          Laura Dern on her portraying KH: Notice the drag queen comment from the interviewer:

          :Laura Dern interview

          Let's not forget the Washington Post fashion editor:

          Washington Post's fashion editor, Robin Givhan, Harris is described as having lips "overdrawn with berry-red lipstick," and of the "creamy sort that smears all over a coffee cup and leaves smudges on shirt collars." Miss Harris' skin, the description continued, "had been plastered and powdered to the texture of pre-war walls in need of a skim coat. And her eyes, rimmed in lines and frosted with blue shadow, bore the telltale homogenous spikes of false eyelashes. Caterpillars seemed to rise and fall with every bat of her eyelid. ...

          "Hers were not the delicate individual lashes that can be used to fill out sparse hairs and give the eyes a lush canopy," the text continues. These were "cartoon lashes, destined for a 'Saturday Night Live' skit."

          "The cruel took to calling her the dragon
          lady," says Givham, "and it quickly became clear that her 15 minutes of fame would be spent as the butt of jokes for late-night comics, morning talk-show hosts, and the Internet millions. By the time folks finished deriding her makeup, they couldn't stop the momentum. They went on to the clothes. ...

          "Who knows what thoughts and concerns are whizzing through Harris's mind," goes the account. "But if body language
          reveals anything, it is that this woman is extraordinarily tense in virtually every photograph. Her mouth is set in a jagged line. Harris is trapped in a torment of historical proportion. And it shows on her face. Harris did what any reasonable person would. She looked in the mirror and began to apply makeup. And apply makeup. And apply makeup. ..."

          Should I post the nasty gutter snipes that said the most vile things about Palin and now the California beauty contestant?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (May 18, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
            3  
            That's interesting. You have some people listed who just aren't "left-leaning" really, just comedians like Jay Leno. They pretty much make fun of everybody, esp. people who have some eccentric behavior. Harris' heavy makeup was pretty over the top. Remember Tammy Fay jokes way back when...

            Katherine Harris is actually pretty whacked, if you don't realize that you're not paying attention.

            As far as Palin and Ms. California....the usual jokers made jokes. Some lefties joined in. I'd rather make fun of their strange ideologies, myself....
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (May 18, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
            3  
            This is a whole bunch o' nothing. There is not one liberal in that group who smeared someone on the right.

            There are countless examples of the reverse.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
        4  
        The body kinetics expert O'Reilly has on has tended to find Nancy's presentation nervous but sincere. There's an example of appropriate commentary and it falls out in favor of Pelosi.

        This is actually completely irrelevant, because her "science" is just a bunch of hooey.

        I am reminded of the totally inappropriate way the Left treated the woman that headed the Florida Election count in 2000. Virtually every source on the left had mean spiteful things to say. They did the same with Linda Tripp and others in the Clinton sexual harassment issues.

        Funny... I don't remeber any of this this. But maybe it was lost amongst all the noise republicans were making in their attemtps to remove a democratically elected president for really no good reason at all. (And that's coming from a guy that didn't even like Clinton!) Tripp is scum because she betrayed a friend's confidence. She stabbed someone in the back who trusted and confided in her. Despite the right's whining, Pelosi has done no such thing. I'd be a little uneasy too if I was publically calling out a gang of torturers who operated in secret, without oversight, and who apparently didn't think there was anyone who could curtail their power.

        Women's beauty faults or failures were considered fair game and the height of humor then. I hope none of you will be so hypocritical as to suggest that the Left does any better job on this than the Right,

        Oh I'll take you up on that. The left does a FAR better job with this, and I challeneg to to proove otherwise. (You know, with actuall evidence?) So go ahead an try, but I'll say it now: We'll bury you.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (May 18, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
          1 1
          I remember a few snipes about Katherine Harris and Linda Tripp. Nothing like what is going on now with Pelosi or what Hillary Clinton has had to endure over the last decade or two.

          I would think if the right wants to make a good comparisson, they should probably complain about how Jindal was treated in his response to Obama earlier this year. More people made fun of his presentation than what Jindal actually said. I am no Jindal supporter, but as a liberal, I was genuinely embarrassed by that whole ad hominem attack on him.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (May 19, 2009 12:12 am ET)
            4  
            Can you provide some examples of ad hominem attacks on Jindal? What I heard were attacks on what he said, and how awkward he was. Not on how he looked, physical traits he cannot control. He was late showing up, he was not very well-informed on the things he tried to attack, and he seemed robotic and ill at ease. David Brooks called his arguments against Obama "insane" and "tone'-deaf".
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 19, 2009 11:06 am ET)
            2  
            I didn't hear any attacks on Jundal in terms of his ethnicity or his PHYSICAL appearance. His folksy delievery maybe, but I think we've had just about enough of his particular brand of donw-home politics over the past 8 years. As for his ideas? It was the typical republican "more of the same" nonsense. (And when have conservtaoives EVER been responsible for NEW ideas?) He was mocked, perhaps, but I didn't see any "ad hominen" attacks, or anything anywhere the superficial attacks on Pelosi. (And Clinton.)
            Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 18, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
        2  
        I wouldn't say virtually every source, I can't recall a single instance of the mainstream press doing so. But I can recall blogsites doing as you claim. The left just doesn't have the disciplined lockstep message as is evidenced by the right.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Leftym0m79 (May 18, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
      4  
      Nancy Pelosi is a botoxed hag, yet Carrie Prejean in all of artificially enhanced glory is beautiful? Most of the men on Capitol Hill are spray tanned and hair plugged (and most likely botoxed) to within an inch of their lives but that's fine and dandy because they have to look good for trophy wife number 2 or 3 or in some cases 4.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (May 18, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
        2  
        Breaking news - Miss "I didn't pose for those photos" California is guest hosting Fox & Frauds.

        http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/05/14/miss-california-on-cable-news-fox--friends-gives-carrie-prejean-her-chance.html
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 18, 2009 7:24 pm ET)
          2  
          Are you surprised? The right is all about rewarding lying, contract breaking hags who get off just for being a rightwinger! Now we can have 24/7 Joe the plumber and Carrie the dumber!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 18, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
          2
        All politics aside, I can guess which of these women would rank higher in Playboy.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jodybie6513 (May 18, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
      2  
      Rush Limbaugh disparaging someone's looks is so...my head will blow up at the absurdity! Why in the world does anyone listen to that illegal-drug-using blowhard? And why isn't he in prison, along with Rove, Cheney, and the rest of those criminals???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ny2nc (May 18, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
        4
      I just read about Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" and here's Number Five:

      RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


      Dude!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (May 18, 2009 11:43 pm ET)
        2 1
        All your post tells us is that you are a loyal O'Lielly fan.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (May 19, 2009 12:13 am ET)
        3 1
        Ridicule is the right's bread and butter, not the left's.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ny2nc (May 19, 2009 8:45 am ET)
             
          Huh?

          My intention was to point out what a bogus feint ridiculing Pelosi's looks is. I thought I was agreeing with this post.

          Guess I wasn't clear about that.

          I don't "get" the "loyal O'Lielly fan" comment.

          Can someone explain to me how this whole issue has swung out of orbit to center on Pelosi, rather than the AUTHORS of the "enhanced interrogation" program. I can't follow their logic.

          1. These techniques are NOT torture. Our fearless administration was doing what needed to be done in a time of war and if you disagree, you're on the side of the terrorists.

          2. These techniques ARE torture and it is Nancy Peloi's fault for not stopping the administration from implementing them. That is why she is such a boxtoxed hag.

          I suppose we could investigate Peloi's role at some point after the previous administration has been tried for war crimes. I mean, first things first, right?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 19, 2009 10:44 am ET)
        1  
        Hey dude! Y'know what's amazing about that? The Right ridicules all the time! So does that make them Alinskyites as well?

        One talker who is a bad offender in this regard is The Not-So-Great One, aka Mark Levin. He is always cracking on people's looks, especially women, and yet he has the hypocritical arrogance to come to poor Limbaugh's defense when his looks were commented on by David Frum. Now that's rich.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ny2nc (May 19, 2009 11:21 am ET)
             
          Thanks, RABBITLUVR, I see. My reference to Alinsky and the word "dude" were problematic.

          I appreciate (and indulge in) snarkiness and sarcasm at least as much as the next guy, but it is no substitute for actual thinking. Subjugating the discussion of our government's use of torture to sniggering comments about Peloi's looks is mind-boggling.

          Has it really come to this?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (May 18, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
      2  
      Such "mental giants" in the pundocracy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (May 18, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
      1  
      last I knew we didn't pay our Senators or Congressmen/women based on what they look like but; rather for what they do.
      Sure she could have worded her rebutals a little more politically but; it wouldn't have mattered much. Conservatives would have still bashed her for her stand, right or wrong.

      I could always hope that we could get by the double standard, in politics, that says a woman can't do the job as well and, oh yeah, they need to be good looking too.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (May 18, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
         
      last I knew we didn't pay our Senators or Congressmen/women based on what they look like but; rather for what they do.
      Sure she could have worded her rebutals a little more politically but; it wouldn't have mattered much. Conservatives would have still bashed her for her stand, right or wrong.

      I could always hope that we could get by the double standard, in politics, that says a woman can't do the job as well and, oh yeah, they need to be good looking too.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MrBrown (May 18, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      4  
      And these are the same people who think that Sarah Palin was attacked because of her looks, and was a victim of sexism...?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 18, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
        4  
        She was attacked because of her looks.

        Her looks over the horizon at Russia from the porch of her house.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
        4  
        Seems that way.

        Except I wouldn't say that Simple Sarah was attached becasue of her looks. Personally I think she's rather attractive for a women her age. Not my type maybe, but I'm sure no one finds her to be at all unfortunate looking.

        Me? I just attcked her for her abject hypocrisy, dishonesty, incompetence and stupidity. I'm sure that what most liberals did. We're like that. We don't care what you look like, but you'd better be smart as hell!

        It doesn't surpise me though that some conservtaives may have accused liberlas of doing this tough. They do tend to project a lot, and they almost NEVER argue policy with a women with any seriousness. So they would have found it unthinkable for a liberal to do so.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 18, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
          2  
          "Unfortunate-looking" may be my new favorite politically-correct term. Thank you.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (May 18, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
      1 5
      Actually, her body language and the lack of eye contact is what they probably cared most about. Her communications through her behavior which is connected to her psychi. Her nerve and her audasity is what they will shred though. Anyway, can they trust her with affairs of the office ever again? IF you think she looks bad now, wait until the fall out of the comments are dealt with inter departmentally. She will not be able to afford botox, she will quietly disappear into a more tranquil setting, and she will have plenty of time to nurture those aging lines on her long vacation. She blew it, that is prescription drug addiction at its finest!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
        4 1
        Her communications through her behavior which is connected to her psychi

        This is NONSENSE. People interpret this crap however it fits their agenda. There's not a scrap of science behind it.

        She looks bad because the right wing medai makes her look bad. PERIOD. She attacked relentlessly as yet beyound "liberal" not one RW pundit can clearly articulate what she's done (other than succeed with a liberal platform) that makes her so repellant. So they go with this nonsense. Same with Hillary.

        I would find ti find it far more disturbing (were there any truth to this) that Hannity, O'Rielly, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc... could lie so effortlessly, without giving any clues vie their "behavior."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by latanza (May 19, 2009 10:13 am ET)
          1 1
          I don't want to offend or startle you but i say that it is true. Behavior is relevant to the state of mind. If not this particular perspective then how about having not been prepared or well rehearsed on her statement. How about the nervous efforts and restleness. It is like a lie detector test through observation I guess. Nonetheless, her disposition, lack of tactfulness and privacy deems my statement to have substatance. I am a woman so I am not speaking from the position of any of those male "reporters". I am speaking as an ordinary person who has no political agenda and no angle. Ms. Pelosi did her self a disservice and she would be wise to confer with her publicist or attorney at this point. I wish her good confidence and I hope that with all of her usefulness she can be afforded a place that will reflect her long time committment to the United States of America- for that alone she deserves the benefit of my doubt and obviously the CIA agrees because they haven't disgraced her. I said it and I stand on it. I am encourage in other areas by Ms. Pelosi but she isnt't ready for Speaker of the House. That is perscriptions at it's best.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 19, 2009 11:22 am ET)
            1  
            Interesting that you bring up lie detectpors...
            http://www.skepdic.com/polygrap.html
            They're basically crap, for the same reason that you analysis of her behavior is.

            Twice now you mentioned "presciptions", the first time in the context of "drug abuse." WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! None of this has anythign to do with prescription drugs!

            Your reply [2nd post] was however far more reasoned that the first post, which is what I was replying to. I still say you're jumping the gun on Pelosi and either falling for, or pushing, the RW talking poitns. But I guess you have your reasons. I don't think she's the best speaker we've ever had either: She's no Tip O'Niell, I'll give you that. But after Gingrich and Hastert, I'll take her. (Would I prefer Stenny Hoyer? Perhaps. But I won't call for her head until she's done somethign ACTUALLY WRONG, like doing the COUNTRY a disservice as oppposed to just "doing herself a disservice."
            Report Abuse
            • Author by latanza (May 19, 2009 11:55 am ET)
                2
              I understand. The exposure to the American public did not do the American people any harm, did it reveal too much strategy to countries abroad though..I haven't given it enough attention and research but I will, IMMEDIATELY. I would say that I can see her not being allowed to object during the Bush Administration. I can see how she felt the need to address the matter where she felt she had balance. How did it leak anyway? (I'll research). I can understand that Ms. Pelosi may have not had the support system that she needed to bring change to contemptuous acts that go outside of normal protocal, now; Ms. Pelosi is not handling this well. Speaker, "speaker being the operative word, is the least she should be able to do extremely well. She may have done us a favor but it is nothing that we can not correct. The forum and uncertainty is the focus for me. I will entertain your objection raised with the utmost respect and consideration so for the mean time i will not comment on the issue. You raise a valid argument when you say "I won't call for her head until she's done something actually wrong, like doing the country a disservice as opposed to just doing herself a disservice". Her position is hand in hand with the service to the country though, not to be taken lightly!!!!!

              You guard these types of matters even in error. It may have been better not to "Speak(er)", just as it may have been in my case.
              Ms Pelosi is eloquent but not for this position. As an American i make that assertion because I feel this topic should not be public.
              I hope that you will excuse my forwardness regarding Ms. Pelosi and I intend to do factually better.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (May 18, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
      4  
      One day, when the information on how our government tortured people for political gain comes out, (and it will - make no mistake), I hope a footnote is added about the news media that enabled and attempted to cover up this kind of behavior.

      The line between bad/lazy journalism and outright propaganda has been crossed. There are no longer any excuses the media can use about "he-said, she-said" journalism and "presenting both sides". The only question to the news media is "how much are you being paid to distort the news and who is paying you".
      Report Abuse
      • Author by latanza (May 19, 2009 11:58 am ET)
          2
        I hope that I have been a major contributor to media taking a more integral role in matters of public affairs.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jbrantow (May 18, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
      2  
      So where is the "outrage" from the fox news media who were screaming when their darling airhead sarah palin was attacked for being a woman. Silence other than their own attacking is very obvious. liars and hypocrits at faux noise.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 7:31 pm ET)
          3
        Careful there! You're coming awfully close to admitting that Sara Palin was attacked for being a woman. Can you prove it? Let's see you go back and root out a bunch of old clips the reality of which will be denied anyway. Didn't you read these blogs regarding Nancy Harris, (thanx whoever that was that supplied the name), and her too much makeup that was never referred to or Linda Tripp and her homeliness that was never referred to? Their memories don't go back that far, (actually I suspect that's true in some cases). What about that poor girl who started the scandal with her sexual harrassment suite against Bill C. No one can remember her nose ever being made fun of by the Left either. No, no! the Left never does things like that. that's something only the Right would even dream of doing. I'll bet nobody remembers the Left making fun of George W's ears, or McCain's troubles using a computer keyboard or his age, ("Grampy McSame" anyone?), because the Left doesn't do things like that in the selective memory of the Left. And if someone else remembers it, they must be lying. Because nobody on the Left does.

        Really? Is there really no one on the Left that remembers any of this? Surely there must be some of you that do. Not that I blame you for keeping silent. On the Left you only invite attack if you stray from the doctrine of Left-wing infalibility. I can remember, not only these attacks, I can remember unfair attacks from the Right. Hillary's pants suites, Lucy Byrd's nose. Elenore Roosevelt's homeliness. Maybe that's one of the mental deficiencies that makes us Right-wingers so inferior, we have memories.

        The issue with the attractive Nancy Pelosi, (I'm old enough to say that with sincerity), isn't her looks, (and it was wrong for anyone to mention it), it's with the inappropriateness of her calling the CIA liars in a press conference like she did, (some of you may be able to remember back that far), and the question of whether she's telling the truth, (which in spite of Left-wing dogma is very much in question). Once that's determined, which it hasn't been, then the question is, does the Democratic Party want to sacrifice parts of its leadership to try to prosecute Bush Administration officials on dubious charges, (which in spite of Left-wing dogma is still the case), or drop the issue, (as it appears the Obama Admin. wishes they would do).

        I think it will hurt the country, so I sort of hope they don't. But I think it will hurt the Democrats more, so I sort of hope they do. Anyway, it's out of our hands and fortunately, not in yours either.

        Oh yeah! I always thooght Tip O'neil was a rather pleasant looking old fellow. Sorry, I don't want to take time to look up references for that one either. (I must be lying.)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 8:42 pm ET)
          3  
          You are so inane. Leftwing infallability? Cough up those talking about leftwing infallability or admit you are nothing more than a brainwashed propagandist who WORSHIPS at the alter of the strawman argument
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (May 19, 2009 7:23 am ET)
          2  
          Actually, she was attacked for being just any random woman who was supposed to be a Hillary replacement.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 19, 2009 8:20 am ET)
          1  
          (I must be lying.)
          Congratulations. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Now try to fix it by telling the truth once in a while.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by latanza (May 19, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
          1
        I don't think that being a woman was the source of the attacks of Palin. Did you observe her or what, she couldn't even speak and she doesn't know geography! Being a woman was not the issue that Americans collectively rejected her. Individuals who had the ability to voice their opinions of her publically felt that they needed to attack her female virtues.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ProfMike (May 18, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
      1  
      How typical for the right. "Ok i can't argue policies, performance, position or anything else that would resemble intelligent discourse so I'll attack you as a person". That's all they have. Why don't they just hold up a sign say Hollow Values. Rush says pictures of Pelosi could lower birth rates??? This from a bloated, bald headed, drug addled blow hard? Hmmm.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 19, 2009 8:22 am ET)
        1  
        Rush says pictures of Pelosi could lower birth rates?
        What's the birth rate been in any of the three or four Limbaugh households so far?

        I guess Limbaugh's presence reduces birth rates far more than Pelosi's picture.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pyratepete (May 18, 2009 7:32 pm ET)
      2  
      Pnce they struck out with trying to make her accountable for the decision to torture detainess they immediately resort to these juveniel tactics. At any moment I expect them to start crying out "I know you are but what am I?"

      Speaking of which, Rush ain't that good looking.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 19, 2009 8:24 am ET)
        1  
        Actually, they're finally getting past that, but we won't see anything different until they master "I'm rubber, you're glue." It may take them until 2016 or so to learn that.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (May 18, 2009 7:58 pm ET)
      2  
      these people are ridiculous... they have nothing left and resort to jokes about facial expressions. just grasping on straws.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Romario (May 18, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
      2  
      Wow...stay classy, repubs...you're really going to win the female vote next time...nice going.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (May 18, 2009 11:52 pm ET)
      2  
      I love the unintended irony of these right wing gargoyles attacking Pelosi for her looks. I guess a mirror is absolutely useless to these soulless cretins, since the undead are incapable of casting a reflection.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmmartin3402 (May 19, 2009 12:37 am ET)
      2  
      As someone -- the Ed Show? -- noted, Rush Limbaugh has a lot of business saying anything about anyone using drugs for any purpose. That fat pig ought to look in the mirror now and then. He would see 280 pounds of pure Grade A hypocrisy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (May 19, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
        1
      Look, historically, we have seen people in certain roles adhere to a certain style and moderacy. No one is going to back down and say she doesn't fit that and you are sounding like Murdoch a little yourself when you become irate over opinions that are different from yours. Academically I am approaching the topic, not as a gossip columnist. It is what it is. If you feel that lie detectors are so much BS, in high profile crimes, why do you then allow media to present the results? It's all good when our rights to free thinking and speech doesn't breach someonelse's right to differ in opinion. I am saying that this is my science and study and I won't stoop to offending or arguing with you. I will take your most credible statements and incorporate them into me making better post. I do this for solidarity and sometimes the truth is not easy to swallow. I believe you when you say that we will appreciate the "whistlblowing" techniques of this issue, but you must appreciate difference and strong opinions to make you a better blogger. I love You though! I didn't mean to upset you. Please excuse me as well Ms. Pelosi.
      Report Abuse