The Official Little Miss Attila Verdict on the 007-Pelosi Video: Not Sexist.

No, I don’t think the idea of the video below was to call the Speaker of the House a “pussy,” though the final tagline does allude to the Pussy Galore character, and does indeed imply that Nancy Pelosi is on the wrong side here, having taken on the intelligence community in the aggressive fashion that she did. Ultimately, the video’s implication is the opposite of what we usually mean to communicate with the word “pussy.”

I think the idea was to make fun of her hubris. If anything, the opening shot of Pelosi frames her with the barrel of a gun, intrinsically comparing her (quite unfavorably) with the world’s most famous fictitious spy, James Bond. “She wanted to be a heroine,” the video says, “but she got flipped, and is now working against the intelligence community. Clumsily.”

This woman has placed herself squarely in the crosshairs—so to speak—of public scrutiny by lying badly about something that wouldn’t matter if she had not been pushing for “truth commissions” to criminalize the other side for taking actions that she clearly approved, and admits openly that she knew about as early as 2003. The likelihood is that she knew in 2002, but one doesn’t even need that to criticize her: several years passed before Pelosi said anything about waterboarding, which she claims she found outrageous when she first heard about it—whenever that was (2002-2003).

And now I am supposed to be outraged by supposed sexism on the part of the GOP?—the party that had a woman at the top um, second spot on its ticket in 2008, featured unprecedented female involvement in the last Presidential administration, and may well elect the first female head of state in this country? Say what?

In order to do that, am I expected to give the Democrats a pass on their over-the-top sexism toward Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton’s victims and mistresses, and—yes—Carrie Prajean?

What are they smoking? The President of the United States once made degrading remarks about Hilary Clinton’s menstrual cycles as part of his vicious primary battle against her; if the RNC is comparing Nancy to a femme fatale, that’s pretty small potatoes.

Alas, both AllahPundit and William Jacobson think the RNC shouldn’t have made the ad, since they should have known that it might be “distorted” by the opposite side. What are we permitted to say that cannot be distorted by the opposite side?

“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
—Karl Popper, by way of Gerard Vanderleun

Meanwhile, the Politico piece that initiated the charges of sexism with respect to the RNC reports that sexist attacks often backfire, as with the feminist followers that Obama lost after he began attacking then-Senator Clinton on the basis of her womanhood. This quote from Phil Singer, formerly of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, demonstrates that truth:

“As the degree of viciousness escalates and increases, I think women – and most people living in the modern era, including men – are more likely to rally to Sarah Palin’s cause,” he says.

He suggests that gender-based attacks can actually be the crucible within which a woman’s base of support is forged.

“Certainly nobody wants to be on the receiving end of this type of rhetoric, but in the long run I think it could end up making Palin a stronger national figure, and creating a real base for her,” he says.

Oh, wait. He was saying this about Nancy Pelosi, and Politico quoted him without looking at its implications for the current Party of Sexism.*

No sense of irony, those guys.

UPDATE: Darleen weighs in:

The RNC uses images and audio from 1964’s Goldfinger, where not only Bond but the CIA gets to play, to tweak Liar Pelosi and Hapless Gibbs. For a brief 3 seconds (at .40) SanFranGran is shown side-by-side with Bond villainess Pussy Galore, and all kerfuffle breaks loose.

That’s right, baby. And I’m supposed to put on the rhetorical handcuffs with the rest of ’em, and sell truth out to be the “bottom” in some cosmic game of B&D with the scribes of the Left.

And Goldstein adds:

Christ. Conservatives deserve to wander the wilderness so long as they continue to accept the premises that Democrats foist upon them, and then scurry around trying to fit their behavior inside parameters that have been defined for them by their ideological enemies.

Call me when “conservatives” are ready to get serious. Because as it stands, our high-traffic spokespeople seem content to play by the left’s rules while humping each other for traffic.

Hey. Why so cranky, Jeff? They’re just trying to be nice.

* Yeah; I stole that rhetorical device from Ace, who will be filing papers for the lawsuit soon, I imagine . . . but only because I’m a girl.