Green Room

Sandra Fluke: Pols should be given ‘pro-woman’ litmus test prior to election

posted at 1:17 pm on March 21, 2012 by

Apparently, the president wasted his dime when he called Georgetown Law student/female activist Sandra Fluke to commiserate with her over the names she had been called by Rush Limbaugh. Fluke was sufficiently unfazed by her exposure to be contemplating a future run for office, The Daily Caller reports. The blog quotes her as saying, “Numerous American women have actually written to me in the last few weeks saying that I should run for office, and maybe someday I will.”

In the meantime, Fluke’s crusade as an advocate for women’s rights proceeds apace. Appearing again on Capitol Hill on Tuesday in a forum on “Opportunities and Challenges for a New Generation of Women” (video here) she spoke of a need for more Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes (which she clarified to mean “working mothers in office,” not hyper-partisan political hacks who remove their foot from their mouth long enough to insert the other).

Fluke went on to say:

There should be a litmus test that [prospective candidates for elective office] be pro-women so our votes have to include that requirement at least. And it should be a litmus test that applies to male candidates as well.

She explained that the litmus test she envisions is not “political,” specifying that candidates need not be Democrat or Republican to pass. They just need to think and act ostensibly the way she does—in short accepting of radical liberal doctrine.

I think Fluke should run for office. It sounds like she is already the quintessential political animal.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Well, I do like the idea of dipping politicians in liquids and watching them turn colors.

J.E. Dyer on March 21, 2012 at 1:22 PM

she spoke of a need for more Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes (which she clarified to mean “working mothers in office,

You mean more Sarah Palins, sweetie.

thebrokenrattle on March 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM

she spoke of a need for more Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes (which she clarified to mean “working mothers in office,

You mean more Sarah Palins, sweetie.

thebrokenrattle on March 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Somehow, I don’t think that’s what she had in mind.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

So, FLUCK comes out in favor of gender bias.

Why is this not shocking news…

Ragspierre on March 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Define “numerous.”

natasha333 on March 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Sounds like gay men are no longer welcome in the Dem party…..

dentarthurdent on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Sounds like gay men are no longer welcome in the Dem party…..

dentarthurdent on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Does keninct know about this?……

dentarthurdent on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

“There should be a litmus test that [prospective candidates for elective office] be pro-women Pro-Liberal Women so our votes have to include that requirement at least. And it should be a litmus test that applies to male candidates as well.”

Opposite Day on March 21, 2012 at 5:36 PM

There should be a litmus test that [prospective candidates for elective office] be pro-women

Is that why Barney Frank retired? Because he’s not pro-woman?

malclave on March 21, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Is that why Barney Frank retired? Because he’s not pro-woman?

malclave on March 21, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I think that would be pwo woman in Barney speak.

Wagthatdog on March 21, 2012 at 6:32 PM

I don’t know how she finds time to do all these things and still have sex 3 or 4 times a day using her own calculations.

Wagthatdog on March 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM

It sounds like she is already the quintessential political animal.

That’s not the only kind of animal she is (if her calculations are accurate).

Mr. Prodigy on March 21, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Well women are 51% of the American population…

And Christians are 90%, so I’ll support the idea that candidates prove they are “pro-woman” as soon as all candidates successfully pass a “pro-Christian” litmus test.

Gingotts on March 21, 2012 at 9:15 PM

she spoke of a need for more Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes

She means we need more mindless idiots? We have enough already.

Dingbat63 on March 21, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Well women are 51% of the American population…

And Christians are 90%, so I’ll support the idea that candidates prove they are “pro-woman” as soon as all candidates successfully pass a “pro-Christian” litmus test.

Gingotts on March 21, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Amen, brother!

And, how about we add a requirement that all candidates for public office prove they are ‘pro-constitution’?

HoosierStateofMind on March 21, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Well women are 51% of the American population…

And I thought the dems were the party of the minorities? So, when can I expect Obama to support men’s rights? Free prostate exams for all? *insert Barney Frank joke here* What about a government subsidy for all the poor men living in the ghetto who can’t afford to order UFC PPV’s?

Cyhort on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Will she run for office as the “most durable” candidate?

trl on March 22, 2012 at 4:17 AM

Just a little paraphrase:

Those who can, do. Those who can’t go into politics.

PatriotGal2257 on March 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Do you think John Edwards would pass the litmus test?

texasgoat on March 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM

What a Fluking Fluker…

Olo_Burrows on March 23, 2012 at 3:52 AM

The Nancy Pelosi of the future?

CTpatriot on March 24, 2012 at 8:52 AM