Arianna Huffington has been recalled as a mother.
Is Susan Estrich being fair?
Well, she’s probably right that Huffington has no change of winning, anyway. After all, she’s up against heavy-hitters like Gary Coleman and Gallagher. :rolleyes:
Estrich’s article doesn’t really have much of a point. She insinuates that Huffington’s a bad mother but finds her charming. She mentions a quote of Huffington’s former husbandm calling her “seductive,” but then says it doesn’t count because he’s a bisexual. Eh?
Is Estrich being fair? Not really. But then again, she’s barely coherent in this article, and fairness in politics went out the window a long time ago. So, no big surprise there.
Just one more example of why the California Governor’s recall race is going to be a big joke, made up of a bunch of little jokes like this one. shrug
It’s mostly a foregone conclusion who’s going to win anyway. He’s going to pump Sacramento up!!
The three points I’d consider are:
[ul][li]Is it true?[/li][li]Is it pertinent?[/li][li]Does it have a purpose?[/ul][/li]I would first look to see whether it was true. Right wing tabloids such as The Washington Times are filled with the story of the sobbing daughters desperately turning to their father as their mother abandons them. Unfortunately, on the few occasions when an attribution is provided, it is to SURPRISE! the now-divorced husband who (oh, so modestly) explains that he had considered running, but that he could not do that in fairness to his daughters.
I’d say that, in these times of “family values” and in light of some of Huffington’s public positions and efforts, it is pertinent.
I doubt that it has any real purpose other than to let a few right-wing glurge writers vent their spleens at Huffington the “traitor.”
Provided that it is not merely a lie spun by Mr. Huffington for his own personal (divorce court) and public (continuing runs for office) gain, it is certainly fair game in today’s politics, although, given Ms. Huffington’s negligible chances to even have her name appear on election night, it seems to no real point beyond personal vendettas.
Just because her kids went running to daddy when they didn’t get their way doesn’t mean she’s a bad mother.
Surely the woman has the final decision as to what career/job she chooses, and not her kids? To be a good mother you have to have your kids decide what you do with your life?
To some people (particularly those of the Dr. Laura set), the answer to the second question is “Yes.” Of course, to the same people, a father who works 12 hours a day is just fine, because it’s his job to “provide” for the kids, and the mother’s job to stay at home.
The double-standard glares like the noonday sun in the Sahara.
I guess my mom and pop were bad parents; they didn’t open up that candy, puppies, and fireworks store like I wanted them to. There goes my mom’s political career!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
The three points I’d consider are:
[ul][li]Is it true?[/li][li]Is it pertinent?[/li][li]Does it have a purpose?[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
You forgot one item.
**Do we care?
I don’t think so. As has been pointed out, we don’t know what factors influenced the children’s decision of which parent to live with after the divorce. Also, Arianna isn’t running for Mommy; she’s running for Governor.
Frankly, Estrich’s column looks like a smear, to prevent Arianna from taking Democratic votes away from Cruz Bustamonte.
I agree with Avalonian’s point. Arianna’s successful seduction of a gay or bisexual man (who happens to be a zillionaire) seems to mean that she is particularly charming.
Oh good, another barely coherent Dowdlike prat. We definately need more of those. Next.
The article was unfair and sexist when it comes to the kids. When was the last time you read an Op-ed criticising a man with a family for running for anything? That part is silly.
The other criticisms stick, though. Huffington may be the biggest hypocrite in America. She fights for the environment, but has a private jet that takes her around the country (burning more gallons of fuel in an hour than an SUV does in a year). She rails against oil interests, but lives in an 8,000 square foot home paid for by oil money. She claims to be against corporate fat-cats, while managing to deduct so many ‘entertainment’ and other expenses from her huge income that she personally paid no tax.
The woman is a power-hungry slime.
So, basically she’s your standard right wing pundit, only with lefty views. It certainly makes her a hypocrite, but are you sure you want to attack that lifestyle when it’s basically a much more MODEST version of the life most right wing pundits live?
I’m not sure how that makes her any more a power-hungry slime than Arnold. Both are fabulously wealthy public figures. Both want power. And both seem to be die-hard leftists. 
And come to think of it, your last two criticisms are a bit non-sequitur anyway.
So, basically she’s your standard right wing pundit, only with lefty views. It certainly makes her a hypocrite, but are you sure you want to attack that lifestyle when it’s basically a much more MODEST version of the life most right wing pundits live?
I’m not sure how that makes her any more a power-hungry slime than Arnold. Both are fabulously wealthy public figures. Both want power. And both seem to be die-hard leftists.
And come to think of it, your last two criticisms are a bit non-sequitur anyway.
I’m not arguing against the lifestyle. I’d have a private jet too if I could afford one. But then again, I’m not running around calling people evil for driving SUVs.
The charge is hypocrisy. I levelled the same charge at William Bennet for his gambling. But Arianna is AWFUL. Much worse. This is a woman who claims to be for the environment, and against tax cheats. So what does she personally do? Fly around in a private jet to parties, then deduct the cost as a business expense! You couldn’t ask for a more perfect example of hypocrisy.