Sexism of the Left

Jessica Tarlov, a political strategist at Douglas E. Schoen, LLC, had a couple of thoughts on the significance of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s primary victories Tuesday and their aggregation into the likely Democratic Party’s nomination.

[W]hat really matters here is that the United States has now joined just a few nations across the globe in offering the opportunity to pick a woman to be president.

I couldn’t be prouder.

And I also couldn’t be more astounded at how little the magnitude of this feat has seemed to matter.

While gaining the party’s nomination is something of a big deal, the gender of the nominee is singularly unimportant.  Beyond that, it matters so little because it’s already been done.  Tarlov carefully ignored Geraldine Ferraro who, if elected, would have been right next to the office.  Tarlov carefully ignored the election of an American who is black, which was a far larger accomplishment, even though race is as singularly unimportant as gender.

Tarlov closed her piece with this:

It’s our turn, ladies.

Because a woman needn’t actually be qualified; it’s just her turn.  It’s hard to see how Democrats’ sexism could get any more blatant than that.

More Stonewalling

The CFPB, which was created after the financial crisis and began operation in 2011, is the latest federal agency to reject requests using a “Glomar response,” named after the Glomar Explorer, a Cold War-era ship used by intelligence officials to retrieve sunken Soviet submarines.

A Glomar rejection of a FOIA request for information is a rejection based on the premise that the agency saying “No” cannot either confirm or deny that the requested records even are in its possession.  This is an intelligence-related claim; yet the the requests are consumer-related information, and the CFPB is reputed to be a consumer-oriented Federal government entity.

With consumer-related FOIA requests, there are no intelligence questions involved.  Of course, the bureaucrats of the CFPB know this.

Sam Gilford, a CFPB spokesman, had this on the matter:

Disclosing whether the bureau possesses records about a pending or potential investigation would effectively disclose whether it has in fact investigated the institution [which could hamper an investigation].

This is disingenuous.  If an “investigation” is pending, it’s under consideration for being initiated.  If an “investigation” is merely potential, it’s just a thought in a CFPB agent’s mind.  There is no investigation extant in either case, and so there can be no hampering of one.

The CFPB is simply stonewalling.