What is it with Conservative males and crushes?
“I was excited about Palin; I’m more excited about Liz. The same sort of excitement you get when you hear her father, except she’s this petite blonde with five kids … You have a little crush on her. It’s hard not to,” – Michael Goldfarb.
(Via Sullivan)
Actually, it’s hard not to roll your eyes at that statement. And I’ve reached the conclusion that sexualizing political figures and Republican women is becoming a GOP past-time. Sarah Palin is the most obvious example, but they did it with Scott Brown as well. And I’ve lost count of the number of times Conservatives refer to their women as hot. Which is simply another way of saying that Republican women are real women.
Now I’m not saying looks don’t play a part in politics, but this sort of overt lusting seems more suited to the privacy of Goldfarb’s bedroom. The fact that Conservatives have been pushing this theme tells me that they’re scraping bottom. We’ve heard this sort of stuff all our lives:
“She/he’s not too bright.”
“Yeah, but they’re hot!”
As if that explains everything – and in some cases it does.
But take a look at what Goldfarb goes on to say about Liz Cheney:
Cheney has already mastered media messaging. Her ambition is most transparent in how carefully she avoids alienating any faction of the conservative movement, including the tea-party wing. On TV, she has danced around fringe issues like Obama’s place of birth, careful not to deny the claim outright, even if it’s clear she doesn’t really believe it. She praised Palin’s book, Going Rogue, even though she didn’t finish it and once called the prospect of a McCain nomination “a sad day for the Republican Party.”
Is this really a complimentary statement? She dances around issues, praises a book she didn’t finish reading, and insults a member of her own party. How are these traits admirable? Guess lust is blind.
And these “starburst” moments are becoming more frequent. It’s all style over substance – which may not be a bad strategy for the GOP since they clearly lack substance.