Andrew Sullivan quotes ‘Heck of a Job’ Brownie as saying:
Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking, ‘We had to federalize Louisiana because she’s a white, female Democratic governor, and we have a chance to rub her nose in it. We can’t do it to Haley (Barbour) because Haley’s a white male Republican governor. And we can’t do a thing to him.’
Well, thank god sexism is dead!
Tiny Cat Pants 
Never mind that Barbour did a great job in the runup to and the aftermath of Katrina and Blanco did a horrible job on both ends.The truth is, Barbour kept Mississippi together and got it moving forward again as soon as the storm passed, and Blanco’s Louisiana has yet to recover from either Katrina or the storm of her ineptitude.
Oh hold on there, Mr. Hobbs. You did not just come to my blog to insinuate that it’s okay for the Bush administration to articulate that one of their reasons for sticking it to Blanco is because she’s a woman because you think she’s doing a shitty job.Oh, wait, you did. Do you care to rethink that or shall I just call you on the evilness of that bullshit position?Because, Mr. Hobbs, that there is evil, to insinuate that it’s okay that the Bush administration said that they were going to "rub her nose in it" because she’s a woman just because you think she’s a bad politician.You want to talk about whether Brown is a trustworthy source? Fine. Let’s talk about whether Brown is a trustworthy source. You want to talk about what Brown’s stake in making his higher-ups look like jerks is? Fine. You even want to talk about whether Blanco is doing a good job? Fine.But you want to insinuate that that quote on its surface is okay, because she’s a shitty politician? Then you’re fixing for a fight.And really, I expect more from you.
Sadly, Brownie has found a pathway to Liberals’ hearts . . . impugn Rove, and by extension, Dubya.But if you read the article quoted by Sullivan, Brownie’s characterization is based on hearsay via Blanco’s office: "[Brown] said that he’d later learned of the machinations through Blanco’s office and from federal officials."But isn’t it ironic that no other Gulf state whined about, nor warranted, federalization of relief efforts.It’d be news to Harriet Myers, Condoleeza Rice, Karen Hughes, and other that Bush is a sexist.
"Ned.""Ned." "Ned." "Ned." Ned." "Ned." (You thought I was going to let that go, didn’t you?)Did you hear I was feeling down? Is that why you’re lobbing these softballs at me? Let me hit a few, start to feel better? Is that your plan?If so, then thanks.If not, then I kind of don’t know what to make of you.Let’s just think about this: "It’d be news to Harriet Myers, Condoleeza Rice, Karen Hughes, and other that Bush is a sexist." I’ll concede just for a second that calling the administration sexist is indeed equivalent to calling Bush sexist if you’ll concede that by saying that Brownie heard "from federal officials" (your own words) about the administration’s reasoning for going after Blanco, you’re admitting that the administration, as represented by those federal officials, did go after Blanco, in part, because she was a woman.If that is indeed the case, then it doesn’t matter how many women are in the administration, the administration is sexist.Your attempt to counter by insinuating that Myers, Hughes, and Rice wouldn’t serve in a sexist administration is therefore laughable on its face, because we’ve established that it seems to be a fact that the administration is sexist and it is clearly a fact that those women serve in it. If Myers, Hughes, and Rice want to be incredibly powerful members of an administration, what other options do they have?All over our nation women work for sexist men. Why should Rice, Hughes, and Myers be any different?And, as usual, I’m not sure what you mean by ironic. Why is it ironic that Louisiana had to be federalized? Because we wouldn’t expect a state governed by a woman to need that? Or because we wouldn’t exepect a state with much more limited funding (because of bad oil deals made years ago) to not have the resources to fend for itself? Or what?Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame you and Hobbs for wanting to change the discussion from whether what Brown said is true and if so, how much that sucks, to whether Blanco sucks.But, in the terms of this discussion, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if she sucks the suck of a thousand sucks. It doesn’t matter if she goes down in history as the worst person to ever govern a state. It doesn’t matter if people from Louisiana from here forward spit every time her name is mentioned.It is still wrong and evil for the administration to decide to "rub her nose in it" in part because she’s a woman.
Schoolin’ the boys. Love it.
Betsy, I just re-read my comment and can only conclude that your feelings about me influence your comprehension of what I wrote. But I’ll restate it in different words to zip that high and inside of the plat baseball right back at you.It’s ironic because Louisiana’s governor and government were complaining about purported machinations to federalize the relief effort and have on the other hand complained that the Feds are somehow responsible for LA’s inadequate relief efforts.And regarding the alleged sexism of the Bush administration (which is equal to Karl Rove, right?), I didn’t concede any such thing (and I provided obvious examples that cut against that conclusion). The article–which you appear not to have read (I kind of have given up on implicitly trusting Sullivan’s conclusions) states that Brownie heard ("hearsay") that Bushies (even all the women listed) wanted to rub the female Blanco’s nose in something. I’m trying to stay on point, but is it the victimization of BigOil that explains her administration’s poor leadership? Was it really an issue of money? I don’t think so.Incidentally, I’m a bit amused to hear the victimization thread you weave, intentionally or not, through this post and comments. It seems that you explain an awful lot by claiming he/she/it is a victim of sexism.
1. I insinuated no such thing.2. I merely pointed out that Blanco did a terrible job while Barbour did a great job.3. Brownie’s source for the charge is Blanco’s people? This is a non-story as both he and Blanco have a motive to cast aspersions on the Bush administration: covering up their own ineptitude and failures.Mississippi didn’t need to be "federalized" because Barbour did a great job.Lousiana needed to be "federalized" – not to run Blanco’s nose in it but because Blanco was a failure.Her being a woman doesn’t excuse her being a failure.
Gentlemen, you tickle me. Okay, let us try again to at least agree on the facts at hand.("Ned," I swear I have no idea what you mean by me being influence by my feelings about you. Do you think I dislike you? Why would I waste all this time picking on you if I disliked you?)Shall we agree that these are the facts as presented to us by the Times Picayune?1. Brown said, "Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking, ‘We had to federalize Louisiana because she’s a white, female Democratic governor, and we have a chance to rub her nose in it.’" 2. The Times Picayune also reports that "He said that he’d later learned of the machinations through Blanco’s office and from federal officials." [emphasis mine]Let us also all agree on the following:1. It is extraordinarily silly, bordering on intellectually dishonest, to claim that the presence of women in a workplace proves that such a workplace cannot be sexist.2. Blanco may very well be a failure.Now, let us go back to the point I am making based on the above facts and points.If the Federal Government decided that they HAD to step in and federalize the response to Katrina because they could not pass up the opportunity in part BECAUSE BLANCO IS A WOMAN, this administration is disgustingly open in its sexism.You don’t negate its sexism if you prove Blanco is a shitty leader. You also doesn’t negate my point. My point has nothing to do with whether she was capable or incapable of meeting the challenge. My concern is that, according to Brown, the Feds based their decision in part on her gender, not on what was best for the people of Louisiana.