Douchebag Decree: Ladies, please!

This week we’re highlighting three women who have a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease.

First up is Nevada-native Senate-hopeful Sharron Angle who, while addressing a Las Vegas high school Hispanic Union, said “So that’s what we want is a secure and sovereign nation and, you know, I don’t know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me. I don’t know that.” Sorry, what?

(Angle was addressing an image of really mean-looking brown men she used in a recent campaign video, an image so stereotypical that it turned out to be a stock image used by another anti-immigration politician. Read more at the Wonk Room.)

Realizing she may have just said something ambiguously offensive, Angle countered by piling on more confusion sauce with, “What we know, what we know about ourselves is that we are a melting pot in this country. My grandchildren are evidence of that. I’m evidence of that. I’ve been called the first Asian legislator in our Nevada State Assembly.” This is a picture of Sharron Angle:

A white woman with red hair in a blue suit smiles in a fake politician way
New political #protip: When in hot water, just call everyone in the room, yourself included, Asian!

Next up is Christine “Not a witch” O’Donnell, who embarrassingly asked Democratic opponent Chris Coons in a recent debate “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”

You got us, Christine. The phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t actually appear in the first amendment, but that’s where, for decades, the Supreme Court has pointed to (that’s how the politics works!) when considering things like, say, teaching evolution in school. Which is the real question you were being asked, and were probably avoiding cause you might say something like, I don’t know, “Evolution is a myth, why aren’t monkeys still evolving into hunans?” Cause you’ve said that.

And finally, the woman who takes the most trifling cake of all, is Mrs. Ginny Thomas, who as you probably know by now, left a voicemail for Anita Hill asking for an apology. For what? Testifying in 1991 against her husband, Clarence Thomas, for sexually harassing her while working as an aid and almost costing him his Supreme Court nomination. Thomas’s voicemail went a little something like this:

“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginny Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”

Naturally, Anita Hill thought this was a prank, its premise so absurd. But no, it was real, and Ginny Thomas, a prominent Tea Party member, stands by that she was “extending an olive branch,” clearly confusing this peace-making metaphor with “sending someone a flaming bag of poo. Across the airwaves.”

Anita Hill, now a professor of social policy, law, and women’s studies at Brandeis, responded, “I appreciate that no offense was intended, but she can’t ask for an apology without suggesting that I did something wrong, and that is offensive.” It doesn’t get much classier than that folks. But she shouldn’t have had to say anything in the first place. And we’re sorry, Anita, that you have to deal with this BS.

Anita Hill looking confident and happy in a red suit
We <3 you Anita!

by Kjerstin Johnson
View profile »

Kjerstin Johnson is a writer and editor in Portland, Oregon. She is the former editor in chief of Bitch. She tweets at @kajerstin

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

6 Comments Have Been Posted

Great post

This is why I <3 Bitch. Great post.


If only the apparent cluelessness of all three honorees were not so common. Sharon Angle's "all look alike" style slip is not that surprising taken in the context of a party that wants the votes of those who have prejudice.

Christine O'Donnell's deliberate denial of the first part of the first sentence of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...") asking "That's in the First Amendment?" is even more troubling because it is part of a much larger pattern. It not only ignores the history and context in which the "establishment" clause arose, including <a href="" rel="nofollow">Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter</a> and centuries of Supreme Court precedent, but her intentions and arguments are clearly in opposition tho most of the principles touched on in the <a href="" rel="nofollow">Bill of Rights</a> (with the sole exception, ironically, of the Second Amendment). Ms. O'Donnell, like Sarah Palin, apparently believes that guns are a Christian value in addition to being a basic right - after all, they are needed to continue the "Crusades" in the Middle East.

As for Ginny Thomas's cluelessness, somehow that doesn't surprise me either. Her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has tended to whittle away at equal treatment under the law (Fourteenth Amendment).

If only there weren't so many candidates for Ye Olde Douchebag Decree. I look forward to reading about more recipients before the upcoming elections and just hope there isn't anything like a Federal Douchebag Department created after the elections are over.

A Clarification and Ginny Thomas Voicemail Repercussions

I thought I should clarify my remark about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's rulings with respect to equal treatment. He has tended to rule in favor of people who sued for reverse discrimination and against affirmative action, apparently believing that unequal representation (in college admissions, hiring, etc.) should resolve themselves without any kind of remedial interference.

His wife Ginny's recent voicemail request for an apology set the wheels in motion for more enlightening details about her husband's appreciation for sexually oriented reading, viewing and discussion. An article in the Washington Post yesterday, October 22nd, 2010, quoted the woman Clarence Thomas had been having a relationship with during the time period involving Anita Hill's allegations before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The article in the Washington Post was titled: <a href=" rel="nofollow">"Lilly McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas"</a> . Lillian McEwen is now considering publishing her memoir.

Mind you, I have nothing against sexually oriented stuff and enjoy it myself. I'm just noting whatever Ginny Thomas might have hoped would result from her voicemail seems to have backfired and that she had been a bit clueless in that respect.

The Hills are having quite a

The Hills are having quite a douchey October! I thought she might be getting the decree for refusing to disclose the identity of the two largest donors to her nonprofit, Liberty Central (which promotes the usual tea party crap - heading up such an organization is decree worthy in and of itself). Since Mrs. Hill is paid by the nonprofit, Mr. Hill benefits financially. Even if she isn't legally obligated to disclose the identity of the donors, he at least needs to know who they are in case it creates a conflict of interest in his duty, to you know, carry out the constitution impartially or whatever. But, then this phone message thing. Really, an apology!? What some people think they are entitled to will shock you every time.

you mean Thomas, right?

you mean Thomas, right?

Add new comment