Video: Ed Rendell’s endorsement of Napolitano
posted at 12:19 pm on December 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Ed Rendell stuck his foot firmly in his mouth when he chatted with the press at the National Governors Conference yesterday. He gave his reasons for supporting Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, most of which revolve around Napolitano’s lifestyle. Campbell Brown roasts Rendell for both the sexism of the comment and the stupidity of ignoring the open mic (via TMV):
Janet’s perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote literally 19-20 hours a day to it.
If that’s the biggest qualification for a Cabinet-level appointment, why not add a few bloggers? I’m sure some of us would welcome a respite from the bathrobes and the basements.
Brown goes a little far afield in her rebuttal; I don’t think Rendell has much to do with shift scheduling, for instance, and the “working holidays” issue hits single men as hard as single women. However, it does highlight the folly of Democrats claiming to represent feminism and liberation. Rendell is no mere party hack; he’s governor of a key state in national elections, and his biggest reason for endorsing Napolitano is that she doesn’t have a family. As Brown rightly points out, Rendell never objected to Tom Ridge or Michael Chertoff on the basis of their families, so why should that even be an issue for Napolitano?
Rendell’s making this kind of bigotry a habit, isn’t he?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Someone’s still stuck on their Palin talking points
Defector01 on December 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I live in AZ and we are in trouble with Napolitano in charge of our security and safety, trust me.
Firebird on December 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM
What ****ing qualifications does she have?
lodge on December 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Fits Kinsley’s definition of a gaffe, being that a politician says something that is true but he doesn’t want to say.
The top corporate or government jobs increasingly require a person’s attention for nearly all of their waking hours. The speed with which critical events can affect our shores is faster than ever. There aren’t enough hours in the day to be “The guy on the wall” and always there for one’s own young kids.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Be fun to watch him try to walk this one back.
a capella on December 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
He’s a Dhimmicrat….free pass from the press, NOW, and Hillary.
ex-Democrat on December 3, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Par for the course for Dems I’m afraid. Just so long as he approves of aborting babies on demand then “feminists” wont get too worked up.
Yakko77 on December 3, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Maybe Napolitano had some abortions, making her more acceptable to Dems?
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Campbell Brown has become much more “watchable” since she left NBC and went to CNN.
D2Boston on December 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM
She supported his candidacy? And she’s been a governor of a border state I guess, but her record on actual Homeland Security issues is pretty much nonexistent. And she’s a poseur on immigration.
Maybe she’ll grow into the job. That makes me feel safe in my bed at night.
meltenn on December 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM
He is sorta correct. Governor Napolitano was somehow able to spend hours and hours on the campaign trail for Obama this summer despite the fact our state is in the midst of a fiscal meltdown.
She’s devoted to the cause. Just what the cause is, however, is somewhat in doubt.
ExUrbanKevin on December 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Yeah, but robot humping videos don’t necessarily make good policy positions :P
lorien1973 on December 3, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Dems don’t care. They have made it clear “women with lives need not apply.” If you have the audacity to not choose to have an abortion, you’re just a dumb breeder who should be home with the children.
chunderroad on December 3, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Fixed it for ya, Ed.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 3, 2008 at 12:36 PM
The double standard has not died…
DL13 on December 3, 2008 at 12:39 PM
At least she doesn’t have any Down Syndrome kids. Boy how embarrassing that would be, if she had her Down Syndrome baby in a meeting with Hussein’s new Director of Communications, the nag from Emily’s List of Candidates Complicit in the Absolute Moral Evil of Abortion.
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Tactless, yet rude.
/slappy
DrSteve on December 3, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I am not an AZ resident, but my question is:
how is Napolitano any worse than say, George W. Bush?
ColtsFan on December 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM
/reaches for bathrobe
whitetop on December 3, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Greetings from the state that re-elects Jack Murtha every two years. Democrats are free to say and do anything without consequence, as there is no GOP to hold them accountable anymore.
jay12 on December 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM
George W. Bush has been in office for 8 years, and nothing has been done.
W. is more concerned about securing Iraq’s border than America’s porous borders…
Napolitano may not be perfect, but she has done more than our GOP commander-in-chief, right??
Where am I wrong on this?
I am not sure it really matters. Because it appears that border security is not really the core problem.
ColtsFan on December 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Sorry I can’t resist…….who would want to “cross pollinate” with her anyways?
grapeknutz on December 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM
He’s a democrat, he won’t have to. Only Republicans and conservatives have to be accountable for what they say and do.
JustTruth101 on December 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Janet Napolitano will be Obama’s Janet Reno. They certainly look alike.
BigD on December 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Not for those men Campbell, but I seem to remember you taking great delight with that debate with Palin
Butters on December 3, 2008 at 12:52 PM
So the most important qualification for a cabinet level position is not having a family? Then Dear Leader (who’s in a much more important job) needs to get a divorce and sign away His kids.
BTW, I do hope Rendell isn’t married, or have kids. Because such distractions would take away from the 18-20 hours a day he needs for his job.
And I did not realize there was going to be a competition for who can insert his foot into his mouth the furthest. My money’s still on Joe Blow Biden.
rbj on December 3, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Daaaaaaaaamn.
Ed Morrissey on December 3, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I have heard this sentiment expressed before. If you are single you some people expect you to work longer hours, carry a heavier load, and forgo holidays without a pay increase.
Blake on December 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Lo, this country was FOUNDED on the visionary strength and moral correctness of robot humping vids. That and war pr0n.
Remember, some people like their cucumbers pickled. What?
issue #2: Rendell has nothing to apologize for and if he has any balls (which i think he does, contra most Dems) he wont apologize.
Mike D. on December 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM
While I agree that Rendell could have been more tactful, All he said was the job was demanding and a family would get in the way. He could have said the same thing about a man without a family and nothing would have been made of it.
OBQuiet on December 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM
By a smaller amount, that is exactly what my family and coworkers think in regards to me. I have no husband or children therefore I have nothing better to do than to work and to hang out incessantly with family members I don’t really like.
Apparently the fact that I lead a fulfilled and busy life outside of work is not relevant since I have popped out a few children. (and my family thinks I’m a huge failure as a woman for not “snaring a man”).
mjk on December 3, 2008 at 12:56 PM
The BS is now so deep we can’t see daylight. There is nothing wrong with what he said. It’s simply true. The hypocrisy is that if he said it about a man, it would still be true and Campbell would not have a problem or a story about it. Can nobody let the truth slip out anymore without attack. We have lost our minds.
bagoh20 on December 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I tend to think there’s a high probability that Fast Eddie was asked to comment on Ridge’s selection (same home state) and I doubt the work/life balance came up.
DrSteve on December 3, 2008 at 12:58 PM
This is just me, but I think this is just female hypersensitivity. Everyone assumes that we white males are given the benefit of the doubt or some unending hall pass for every transgression. That is complete nonsense. There are all sort of assumptions made about men from time to time.
Would Rendell had made the same comment if the nominee were a single man with no family? Why not? It seems to be a fair comment. Did anyone call Chertoff or Ridge perfect for the job at all? Again, why would they. They have families.
People need to stop being so offended by common sense.
scanlan96 on December 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Napolitano: “opposing the immigrant crackdown launched by the notorious immigrant-bashing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and vetoing measures that would have denied social services to illegal immigrants.”
“Napolitano flew to Washington to urge Democrats on Wednesday to support a Senate immigration overhaul that would legalize the estimated 12 million people now living in the country illegally, while adding border and worksite enforcement and a large guest worker program”
Worse than Dubya? Not really. Better, as in, you know, “Change?” Not exactly.
Bishop on December 3, 2008 at 1:00 PM
While I agree that Rendell could have been more tactful, All he said was the job was demanding and a family would get in the way.
More demanding than, say, President of the United States?
Bishop on December 3, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Fabu. So what you’re endorsing is the idea that because Napolitano and by extension myself have no husbands and have not pooped out any kids, we have no life and can thus devote our entire waking hours to our jobs. Because single people are pathetic losers who have nothing better to do than to work when all those fulfilled individuals with husbands and 3.5 children can go home and live.
I am deeply offended by that. I happen to lead a fun and fulfilling life. And I enjoy my life. I resent the idea that I am somehow not a real person because I don’t have children or a husband or that my life is somehow less interesting or valuable because of that.
Screw you.
mjk on December 3, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Inconsistency from Campbell? Surely you jest. I don’t mind that she does those segments, a lot of the time she has good points, but they’re pretty random. It seems like she just rants about whatever is on the news that day, with no awareness that she sometimes contradicts herself.
meltenn on December 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM
She is a disaster and her nomination exposes Obama’s naivete. Just because she is a democrat from a border state does not mean she is qualified to serve in such a capacity.
Frankly Sheriff Joe (the exact opposite) would be the perfect candidate for the job.
FWIW, I think Rendell wanted that job.
FireBlogger on December 3, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Border security is part of Homeland Security.
This is an old report, issued in 2006, just before the elections by the Majority Staff (back when it was Republican) of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations: A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border. (39 page pdf doc). It is worth the read for the info on crime, smuggling, violence and the infiltration of terrorists from across the border.
INC on December 3, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Two words – Sarah Palin –
Where were you Campbell?Sen. Boxer?
Don’t fall off your high horse.
BTW, remember Condo Rice getting dissed by Sen. Boxer?
RobCon on December 3, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Rendell was an incompetent, corrupt dope when he was Mayor of Philadelphia and he’s currently an incompetent, corrupt Governor of a rapidly declining state.
Who cares what this clown act says about anything, really?
I’m rapidly becoming bored with the minutely inanities uttered by idiot Democrat politicians.
The American people vote for these complete a-holes in droves, that’s who they want. Incompetent, corrupt a-hole Democrat politicians in elected office.
Just as sure as the sun shines in the east.
NoDonkey on December 3, 2008 at 1:21 PM
“I mean, how do you respond to people who wonder why her mother would have subjected her to this scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?
Campbell Brown regarding Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.
Sept/ 2008
RobCon on December 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I wonder why she has no family. Oh I know, but if I told you the Anti-Prop 8 Folks would start blacklisting Hotair…er…too late for that.
Still, put two and two together and it’ll be obvious why she has no family.
Tim Burton on December 3, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I dunno. I find his comments pretty offensive. A few comments on your points:
This is just me, but I think this is just female hypersensitivity.
Ed Morrissey is not a woman, but he picked up on the offensiveness of Rendell’s comments. My husband did as well.
Everyone assumes that we white males are given the benefit of the doubt or some unending hall pass for every transgression. That is complete nonsense.
Race has nothing to do with it. I know white men are getting pounded by the politically-correct crowd (my hubby is a white guy), but try not to see everything through that lens. This has to do with gender issues, not race.
There are all sort of assumptions made about men from time to time.
Yes, and in that context one of the assumptions that is made is that family issues are not a concern (for the prospective employer) because the wife will be the one taking care of the children. No one worries about whether or not the prospective employee in their 20′s and 30′s that they’re interviewing is planning on having babies… if that interviewee is a man… but they do think about it if that person is a woman. Is it understandable? Sure it is. Maternity leaves can really disrupt a workplace. Is it legal or appropriate to factor that into a hiring decision? Nope.
Would Rendell had made the same comment if the nominee were a single man with no family? Why not? It seems to be a fair comment.
That’s the point. I can’t think of a male candidate for a position whose family situation was brought up as a factor (other than the usual fawning over politician’s families, Sarah Palin’s family being the notable exception to the usual glow the media bestows on candidates by simple virtue of their existence). I certainly can’t think of an example of any friendly politician who is supportive of a President (or President-elect) complimenting that POTUS’s nominee because he was single. Can you?
Did anyone call Chertoff or Ridge perfect for the job at all? Again, why would they. They have families.
The point is that when politicians compliment appointees, they do so on their merits, not on their family status.
People need to stop being so offended by common sense.
It’s not common sense to compliment an appointee based on factors that are simply not proper to consider when hiring or firing someone.
Y-not on December 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Mountains and Molehills. Waste of a click. Umm yes if you are not responsible for taking care of children you will have more time. That is why people put off building a family because of their career and vice versa. It is not a qualification, just an attribute.
For those whining about sexism and whatnot it can be applied to both sexes. Fathers are not supposed to neglect their family either, look at the Gore family for example. Besides we all know Palin’s kid was impregnated by the holy spirit anyway, not parental neglect.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 1:33 PM
At least they’re consistent. Remember, a lot of lefties went postal on Palin because she was going to have to balance her family life with her service to the country, and one was going to have to be shorted, and think of her poor kids including the retarded one because that’s where she needs to really spend her time.
No family means no problems getting the job done. Of course, The One doesn’t have this problem, because he’s male.
unclesmrgol on December 3, 2008 at 1:36 PM
wait and watch as the video goes viral. a state governor doesn’t realize he’s being taped during a private conversation. wait and watch the world giggle. or just wait.
Phoenician on December 3, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Sounds like something Biden would say. Heh.
aero on December 3, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Oh and one other thing. People always whine about the family comment, but when politicians and cabinet officials decide to resign, usually during unpopularity or scandal, they always say they are resigning to “spend more time with their family”. So many do use it as a crutch too.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Does that mean we’ll be seeing Janet Napolitano’s Dance Party on SNL?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 3, 2008 at 1:53 PM
LevStrauss on December 3,2008 at1:33PM
What a shitty, spiteful comment that was. Ya just made a great case for genetic manipulation, moron.
irongrampa on December 3, 2008 at 1:58 PM
goodness.. that open mic clip is hilarious!!!!
“You’ve got to have no live”… lol!! hahah hahah hahah
Hey Barack – care to take back that Hillary nod to Sec of State? Hahahah All the Clintonites will be sure to over play their hand – this will make for great entertainment.
Obama is a paper tiger and will buckle under the slightest pressure from inside or out.
gatorboy on December 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Can you imagine the fall out if this jerk was a republican?
DJ from MA on December 3, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I hate to “whine,” but Rendell’s comments are inappropriate and offensive because they are “complimenting” Napolitano based on a criterion that it is illegal to factor into hiring and promotion. They’re stupid comments from a stupid man. It’s just funny that they come from a prominent Democrat.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Napolitano is a good pick, but Rendell’s comments are offensive.
Y-not on December 3, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Is my comment worse than Dan Quayle’s comment on bastard children?
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I’m thinking there would never be a reason for Napolitano to have an abortion – unless her “friend” broke up with her after Napolitano was artificially inseminated and the Janet Reno look-alike didn’t want to be punished with a child?
Just a guess.
LOL, sorry, I crack myself up sometimes…
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM
True colors shining through.
I agree-those pesky families really do get in the way.
Badger40 on December 3, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I know Ed Rendell and have worked with him. I disagree with him politically 99% of the time but I do think he is the genuine article. He’s stuck his foot in his mouth before and will do it again but he speaks his mind — which is refreshing.
Now, his endorsement of Napolitano is the real problem here. After Al Qaeda ‘tests’ Obama we’ll see just how clueless this chick is.
grdred944 on December 3, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I don’t care much for democrats, but she at least militarized the AZ/Mexico border
Black Adam on December 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
The most straightforward analysis of Campbell and her ilk.
btw, Butters, “Loo, loo I’ve got some apples, you have some too?” ;^}
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Y-not, I still do not see the offense, so I will agree to disagree with you on this. But a couple of follow up points
Ed and I have the same hairline, so I agree he is not a woman, but I can find dozens of people who agree with me, and many of them posted here. Each of us applied our own filters to this one and read more or less into what he said. I disagree with Ed on this.
I agree, but I wanted to just point out that there is only one group that is not hypersentative or allowed to be… they are not all men, and they are not all white, but a subgroup shared by both.
Is it appropriate? It would be in a free and open market, but it is not legal, so it no longer is appropriate. Personally, I think it is a nice benefit for families, and I think it is good business.
Everytime a married woman runs for higher office, the husband is brought up. Bill Clinton was brought up for Hillary, Todd Palin (as you noted) for Sarah, but local Congressional and Senate contests are not national, so it comes up less frequently in national politics.
This is the crux of the disussion, but it was a soundbite from a larger conversation. Rendell did not say that was her only qualification. Obviously if she were considered a terrible candidate except for her marital status, he would not have complemented her at all.
Often it seems that any slight, real or otherwise, that occurs against a female, it is always taken in a negative light. The fact that this was said regarding Napolitano has everyone jumping on the “he said it ONLY because she is a woman” bandwagon. Could it be that he said it and it had nothing to do with her lack of Y chromosomes?
Just maybe…
scanlan96 on December 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM
errr … none.
next question …
errr … no. See the response below.
next question …
regarding, say, the border and immigration; no difference.
AZ_Redneck on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Very offensive comment.
Thanks for demonstrating your level of class.
cs89 on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Fast Eddy’s a democrat. There will be no repercussions
Bevan on December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
What the hell are you talking about? He didn’t say she was not a real person. He said she was perfect. Are you high or just stoned on your own specialness?
bagoh20 on December 3, 2008 at 3:01 PM
You omitted the Batman pajamas, fuzzy slippers, and Cheetos!
BuckeyeSam on December 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM
People are offended because she is single. People are offended because they think it is a slight against women. People are offended because they think this is an attack on people from Arizona. Union guys are offended because they feel there are unfair attacks against the guy who should have removed the microphone earlier.
Apprently, no one has a corner on the outraged market.
scanlan96 on December 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I’m outraged that I’m not outraged! Errr, well I’m…just outraged!
I’ll need more time to flesh it out, but still, I’m pissed!
bagoh20 on December 3, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Campbell has always been ‘watchable’… listenable is another matter
DaveC on December 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
And the libs think they are so much more progressive than us.
Think the huffpo crowd will be all up in arms about this?
Maybe if he slighted gays.
ctmom on December 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I’m single and kid-free as well and ICAM! I have gotten the old “You won’t mind staying late/working the weekend/holiday, will you?” pitch myself many times. I’m not sure if that’s more a gender bias thing or an anti-single people thing, but it IS annoying and it’s a ridiculous and unsubstantiated assumption that because we’re unmarried and have no kids that we are free and willing to spend our sadly unfulfilled lives slaving away in the office 80 hours a week. I enjoy my job, but I work to live, not the other way around. AND I would even make the argument that I have LESS time to spend working because I don’t have someone at home to share the chores with me. Groceries need to be bought? I do it. Car needs a tune up? I do it. Dog needs walking? I do it. Elderly grandmother needs a lift to the doctor’s office? I do it. Squirrels need to be evicted from the attic? I do it. I do ALL the cooking, ALL the cleaning, ALL the home repairs, ALL the bill paying. And this is stuff that would still exist to be done if I had a husband and kids. But the kids could be made to load and empty the dishwasher, the husband could be tasked with paying the bills. I don’t have that luxury. Anything that has to get done around here has to be done by me. And, believe it or not, I actually DO enjoy having some free time to read, or surf the Internet, or watch TV. If that’s called not having a life, I don’t know what more I can say. I’d like to invite ol’ Ed down here to my neck of the woods and let him live my non-life for a couple of weeks. He’d need a vacation when he was done.
That said, I think the bigger issue with this clip is Campbell Brown’s glaring hypocrisy. She blasted Sarah Palin for daring to consider running for VP when she has five kids at home, but now she’s outraged that Ed would suggest that having a family is a liability to someone seeking a career in higher public office. How these people get by with calling themselves journalists I surely do not know. And to answer her question whether a man would be held up to these same standards, the answer is a resounding NO as no one ever bothered to question whether it was possible for Joe Blow Biden to manage a career in the Senate AND parent his children, and he didn’t even have the benefit of an active and involved spouse as Sarah Palin does.
NoLeftTurn on December 3, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Ya know, Rendell’s mother must have been very strong… raising a dumbbell like him.
Zorro on December 3, 2008 at 8:36 PM
NewsBusters has an article expanding on your point.
meltenn on December 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Ehn, I’m ambivalent on this one. A man who has no family has more to spare as well. Also, there are white people in this country who wouldn’t vote for a black man, no matter how qualified the black man is or where he falls in the ideological spectrum.
‘Course, the real issue is whether Janet Napolitano has what it takes to be our DHS chief. Personally, I don’t know if someone who endorses a “Crescent of Embrace” should be in charge of security, but that’s just me.
NorthernCross on December 4, 2008 at 5:24 AM
So what exactly did he say that was untrue and or sexist?
abcurtis on December 4, 2008 at 7:59 AM