The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Kirsten Gillibrand’s Phony ‘Courage’

Posted on | September 16, 2014 | 33 Comments

Kirsten Gillibrand is a Democrat and a liar, but I repeat myself. In her new book, she claims that male Senate colleagues sexually harassed her, but refused to name names, which means either:

A. The harassers were Democrats, and Gillibrand is protecting these sexist swine for partisan reasons;
B. She’s lying.

You can believe what you want to believe, but I never believe anything any Democrat says, unless it is independently corroborated, and we have no way to corroborate Kirsten Gillibrand’s stories:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is giving more details, and dropping f-bombs, about her experience with sexist comments she’s received about her weight, saying she couldn’t tell a male colleague “to go f—- himself.”
“At that moment, if I could have just disappeared, I would have. If I could have just melted in tears, I would have. But I had to just sit there and talk to him. And I switched the subject and I didn’t hear another word he said, but I wasn’t in a place where I could tell him to go f—- himself,” Gillibrand told HuffPost Live in an interview posted Monday. . . .
Talking to to HuffPost Live, Gillibrand said of the comments, “It’s all horrible” adding that women “get comments like this all the time.”
She said the comments are “undermining” to women’s careers and she pushed back against critics who questioned why Gillibrand hasn’t named names, saying it’s not just about “any one insult or any one person.”
“It’s more important to elevate the debate, to have a national debate about how are women treated in the workplace,” the senator said.

Oh, I see: Not naming names — which might make it possible for us to verify or disprove what Gillibrand says — is a way to “elevate the debate,” which is not about the specific truth of what Gillibrand says, but “about how are women treated in the workplace.”

What she’s trying to do is to get “courage” points, offering herself as the Heroic Victim in the feminist narrative of what happens to women “all the time,” soliciting admiration by telling stories about how brave and strong she is, Speaking Truth to Power — and yet preventing us from verifying that she is actually speaking the truth.

This is a classic bullshit artist technique: Tell a story in such a way as to make it difficult to confirm or disprove; when people then ask for the kind of details that would make it possible for them to confirm it, you change the subject. “The details don’t matter.”

You see this technique, for example, in “Stolen Valor” cases, where bullshit artists fraudulently claim to be combat veterans and either (a) they were in the service, but never saw combat, or (b) they never were in the service at all. This kind of evasiveness about details — the unit they were in, the names of their commanding officers — is your clue that something is wrong with their story.

Have people said rude and obnoxious things to Kirsten Gillibrand? I don’t doubt that, but people say rude and obnoxious things every day without anyone claiming to be victimized or harassed. What Gillibrand is claiming, however, is that she was the victim of a pattern of sexist comments and behaviors by members of the United States Senate. This is a very serious accusation, and Gillibrand cannot be permitted to make such accusations, refuse to name names, and then try to change the subject by saying she wants to have “a national debate about how are women treated in the workplace.”


But she’s a Democrat, so that’s not actually news.



33 Responses to “Kirsten Gillibrand’s Phony ‘Courage’”

  1. Quartermaster
    September 16th, 2014 @ 7:59 am

    “Kirsten Gillibrand is a Democrat and a liar, but I repeat myself”
    You do this a lot.

  2. NeoWayland
    September 16th, 2014 @ 8:30 am

    Power through victimhood.

    If it works, this “lady” has just set herself up as the “moral” authority from here on out. No matter what her colleagues do, it will never be enough and she has set herself beyond criticism. No matter what her place in the Party structure, she will have veto power.

  3. PeterP
    September 16th, 2014 @ 8:32 am

    Gillibrand is either lying or doesn’t mind that the misogynist cretins who harassed her are left to harass other women. (She’s lying or she would name names)

  4. scarymatt
    September 16th, 2014 @ 8:33 am

    Speaking Truth to Power — and yet preventing us from verifying that she is actually speaking the truth.

    Not to mention that actually speaking truth to power would have been to tell the offender to, y’know, fuck off. Or at least coming out in public and exposing him.

  5. RS
    September 16th, 2014 @ 8:37 am

    “Fake but accurate.”

  6. Mike G.
    September 16th, 2014 @ 8:42 am

    Pictures or it didn’t happen!

  7. Mike G.
    September 16th, 2014 @ 8:44 am

    They must be Democrats. If they were Republicans, their names would be headlines on the Washington Post and NYT.

  8. McGehee
    September 16th, 2014 @ 9:08 am

    I’m not sure Gillibrand is qualified to speak truth to power anyway. It would require her to speak mostly to herself.


  9. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 16th, 2014 @ 9:09 am
  10. Art Deco
    September 16th, 2014 @ 9:25 am

    She was paid a sum in the mid-six figures to practice law in a politically-connected firm which includes Clinton consigliere David Boies. Practicing Big Law is not a trade for the emotionally delicate. For someone who’s undone by vulgarity, she is one expensive piece of ass.

  11. Jeanette Victoria
    September 16th, 2014 @ 9:29 am

    Speaking REAL truth to power is dangerous it’s something liberals only pretend to do

  12. NeoWayland
    September 16th, 2014 @ 10:05 am

    Excellent question.

    But it was never about sexual harassment, it was always about political control.

    Something that Republicans Can’t Be Allowed To Have.

  13. Adobe_Walls
    September 16th, 2014 @ 10:22 am

    Ding, Ding, Ding, I believe we have a winner.

  14. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 16th, 2014 @ 10:29 am

    To be fair, the Dems give him a lot of material to work with.

  15. Adobe_Walls
    September 16th, 2014 @ 10:38 am

    According to the huffpuff piece “…..a male labor leader harassed her about her weight several years ago after she’d had a baby”….

    Are there any Republican labor leaders? Apparently he told her that ‘You’re too fat to be elected statewide,’ Not that I’m opposed to crucifying labor leaders on any pretext but it sounds to me like he wasn’t harassing her but rather stating what he thought was a neutral objective fact.

    One suspects politicians from NY can’t afford to name names of “labor leaders”.

  16. jim
    September 16th, 2014 @ 12:09 pm

    “she couldn’t tell a male colleague ‘to go f—- himself.'”

    If she did and he was a Dem, like Barney Frank, he’d probably enjoy the experience of trying.

  17. AMartel
    September 16th, 2014 @ 12:49 pm

    Why is a United States Senator such a crybaby? That’s the real question. Feminists always complain that women are oppressed because they do not have the authority of a man. Well, in this case, Senator Tellalie had the EXACT SAME AUTHORITY as the moron (I mean, really; that’s the best he could do?) who supposedly called her fat but she’s still in tears and unable to come up with a riposte. Okay, now THAT’S the real question: Why are Senators such morons.

  18. Tom Harkin Wins Hillary Booster of the Month | Regular Right Guy
    September 16th, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

    […] Kirsten Gillibrand’s Phony ‘Courage’ […]

  19. Squid Hunt
    September 16th, 2014 @ 1:48 pm

    Good thing no one makes fun of any men for being fat and in politics. It’s obviously just about their sex. Just ask Chris Christie.

  20. Quartermaster
    September 16th, 2014 @ 3:32 pm

    They give him more material to work with than he could possibly use.

  21. RKae
    September 16th, 2014 @ 4:54 pm

    He does do it a lot.

    You’re right. He does do it a lot.

  22. Unix-Jedi
    September 16th, 2014 @ 5:26 pm

    While I agree, and immediately jumped to the same conclusion – “They’re Democrats”, I’ve got to give her a bit of a benefit of the doubt, because if she named-names, everybody would run to Senator OldDem and he’d either apologise, rend his clothes, or deny it. It would turn into the personal.

    So yes, there’s a point to relate the general theme, without naming names.

    So you have to go to if she’s a truthful person. I can only speak to her “conversion” from NRA-A-Rated Rep to Schumer-coattail holder within days of hitting the Senate as my metric there.

    It’s really easy to fabricate stories.

    But as to the single point of naming names – she’s right. IF – and it’s a big if – she understand that to be believed, she’s got to be utterly truthful in all other things, as well.

    Or, heck maybe she’s just following in the Steps of the Great Compositer Obama…..

  23. Dana
    September 16th, 2014 @ 5:39 pm

    OK, let’s assume that the lovely Mrs Gillibrand did face some sexual innuendo or unwanted sexual advances. Many women have this problem at work, and can’t do much about it, or they’ll find themselves on the unemployment line. But other senators can’t fire Senatrix Gillibrand! She is completely, completely! immune to retaliation by the harassers. All that she has to worry about is her next election, and as long as she remains the Democratic nominee, in a state like New York, she’s virtually guaranteed a general election win.

  24. Matthew W
    September 16th, 2014 @ 8:45 pm

    Too bad she couldn’t have served with Dodd/Kennedy.
    Sure they would have tried to make a sandwich out of her.

  25. Kirby McCain
    September 16th, 2014 @ 10:14 pm

    She’s lying through her teeth. It’s not possible for a politician to make it to the Senate and have thin skin. Secondly, she’s not the only woman in the Senate but she’s the only one making these accusations.

  26. DeadMessenger
    September 16th, 2014 @ 10:15 pm

    And not only that, she says this: “At that moment, if I could have just disappeared, I would have. If I could have just melted in tears, I would have.”

    WTH?? I don’t know of any professional woman who would even think something as stupid as that. This is something an 8 year old would think. Or a Democrat. And she wasn’t “in a place” where she could tell him to go eff himself? Again, WTH? A man I’m not married to puts his hands on me like she alleges, and makes a personal comment, I don’t care if he’s the friggin’ Pope, he’ll be picking what’s left of his testicles out of his buttcrack for the next day and a half. (Redneck thing, I s’pose.)

  27. Dana
    September 16th, 2014 @ 11:12 pm

    I think that it’s fair to say that Barbara Mikulski was never, never! the victim of unwanted sexual advances.

  28. Matt_SE
    September 17th, 2014 @ 2:00 am

    Doesn’t someone have a running tally of SJWs in recent years that hoaxed their own victimhood? This story reminds me of that.

  29. Funeral guy
    September 17th, 2014 @ 2:38 am

    If we had an unbiased press (or she accused a Republican) we’d never hear the end of this. But it didn’t happen, so that’s the end of it.

  30. Matthew W
    September 17th, 2014 @ 7:39 am

    I would even dare say she’s never been the victim of wanted sexual advances

  31. trangbang68
    September 17th, 2014 @ 10:10 am

    I know he’s not a Senator but has anyone seen Anthony Wiener lately?

  32. Thomas Gann
    September 17th, 2014 @ 11:52 am

    I don’t believe Kristen Gillibrand in the least bit.If it was a Republican his name would have already been leaked to the media. If it was another Dem,she wouldn’t even hint of it for fear of the backlash that would come against her.

  33. FMJRA 2.0: Midnight Rider : The Other McCain
    September 21st, 2014 @ 6:03 am

    […] Kirsten Gillibrand’s Phony ‘Courage’ […]