Commenting on a Politco article noting that Democrats are raising concerns about the embarrassing antics of my state’s junior Senator, Michelle Malkin writes, “Guilting. Hectoring. Race-baiting. Emotional-card-playing. [Ma’am Boxer] doesn’t know any other way to do things.”
And all the while holding different standards for different people. She’ll hector one peson for behavior which she lets slide in another. She objected when Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, testifying before a Senate committee called her “Ma’am,” but did not raise the same concern when when Black Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO Harry Alford addressed her in the very same manner.
In 1991, then a member of the House of Representatives, joined by a handful of her female Democratic colleagues in feigned high dudgeon, she stormed the Senate steps to demand a delay in Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings because that good man had been accused of sexual harassment. Her concern about the importance of investigating sexual harassment vanished when a Democrat was accused of far more reprehensible behavior. In the 1990s, she stood by Bill Clinton,
even thanking him in her victory speech when she won re-election to the U.S. Senate [in 1998]. The woman who raised a ruckus over a Republican accused of boorish behavior (talking about porno movies and pubic hairs on Coke cans) was silent when a Democrat was accused of rape.
In short, she’s a partisan hypocrite. And that’s why I call her Ma’am. When a military official called her, “Ma’am,” she singled him out for scolding, yet when the representative of a black business group used the very same term, she wasn’t offended. I’m sure intrepid web-searchers could find more such examples of her not objecting when individuals address her as Ma’am.
By using this term as her “honorific,” I hope to remind people of this bitter partisan’s hypocrisy.