Hilliary refused to fire staffer charged with being "sexually inappropriate." Media cheers.
The following story perfectly exemplifies how Hilliary lies to dodge taking any blame for...well, anything. The story is that back in her 2008 campaign, she hired a guy named Burns Strider for the position of "faith adviser." Seriously.
A female campaign worker reported he was 'sexually inappropriate" toward her. This was reported up the chain, who recommended to Hillary that he be fired.
Hilliary declined to fire him. Eventually he got a job with one of David Brock’s groups (Correct the Record) where he once again was accused of "acting inappropriately" toward a female staffer.
Now obviously we have no idea whether the complaint against Strider was valid or bogus--and of course neither did Hilliary. That's not the point here. Rather, it's that in the current feeding frenzy over sexual harrassment, Hilliary simply cannot take the criticism that would likely fire up among militant feminists for keeping this guy on her staff.
But if she'd fired the guy, one or two members of the media would surely have pointed out her hypocrisy in defending her own husband against numerous sexual allegations. She didn't want that.
So read Hilliary's response, below and see how deftly she hid her culpability:
"I was dismayed when it occurred." Oh,well, it's all good then. As long as you were "dismayed" you are relieved of any ethical responsibility to fire the guy. Cuz after all, it's not the boss's job to fire bad apples, right? Hey, we're all just one big family here, eh?
The young woman "was heard." Ah, all's well then. As long as you "heard" her complaints, no need to do anything rash. Hmmm...Would you say this was a reasonable response for a male CEO of a large company? Of course not.
And the complainant "had her concerns taken seriously and addressed." Ah, well, everything's fine then. You not only took her complaints seriously, but actually addressed them. Would you tell us exactly how you addressed those concerns? Cuz it looks like you didn't do squat.
Hilliary is on board with "All women who claim to have been harrassed must be believed." Except when she's the CEO. Or when it's necessary for her political power to defend her husband by discrediting his accusers.
It makes perfect sense.
A female campaign worker reported he was 'sexually inappropriate" toward her. This was reported up the chain, who recommended to Hillary that he be fired.
Hilliary declined to fire him. Eventually he got a job with one of David Brock’s groups (Correct the Record) where he once again was accused of "acting inappropriately" toward a female staffer.
Now obviously we have no idea whether the complaint against Strider was valid or bogus--and of course neither did Hilliary. That's not the point here. Rather, it's that in the current feeding frenzy over sexual harrassment, Hilliary simply cannot take the criticism that would likely fire up among militant feminists for keeping this guy on her staff.
But if she'd fired the guy, one or two members of the media would surely have pointed out her hypocrisy in defending her own husband against numerous sexual allegations. She didn't want that.
So read Hilliary's response, below and see how deftly she hid her culpability:
"A story appeared about something..." See, Hilliary strongly doesn't want to tell you what happened, since that will show her utter hypocrisy. So she simply omits this from the story. "Something" happened, but if you don't know don't worry about it. Probably nothing.A story appeared today about something that happened in 2008. I was dismayed when it occurred, but was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed.
"I was dismayed when it occurred." Oh,well, it's all good then. As long as you were "dismayed" you are relieved of any ethical responsibility to fire the guy. Cuz after all, it's not the boss's job to fire bad apples, right? Hey, we're all just one big family here, eh?
The young woman "was heard." Ah, all's well then. As long as you "heard" her complaints, no need to do anything rash. Hmmm...Would you say this was a reasonable response for a male CEO of a large company? Of course not.
And the complainant "had her concerns taken seriously and addressed." Ah, well, everything's fine then. You not only took her complaints seriously, but actually addressed them. Would you tell us exactly how you addressed those concerns? Cuz it looks like you didn't do squat.
Hilliary is on board with "All women who claim to have been harrassed must be believed." Except when she's the CEO. Or when it's necessary for her political power to defend her husband by discrediting his accusers.
It makes perfect sense.
posted by SF at
12:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home