Stay classy, Democrats.
The co-chair of President Obama’s campaign, showing her qualifications.
“Desperate Housewives” actress Eva Longoria, who for some reason is the co-chair of the Obama campaign, took to her Twitter account and its 4 million, 262 thousand followers to re-tweet this dignified and reasonable message:
“I have no idea why any woman/minority can vote for Romney. You have to be stupid to vote for such a racist/misogynistic twat”
She took down the tweet, perhaps after someone with a brain at DNC headquarters explained why this was an inappropriate message for a co-chair of the President’s campaign to endorse. Then, after appearing to blame Twitter for it sneaking someone else’s tweet into her feed, apologized, saying via Twitter,
“I use Twitter as a platform for all Americans and their opinions. Sorry if people were offended by retweet. Obviously not my words or my personal view. I respect all Americans #FreedomOfSpeech…”And for the record I have never personally called any conservative women stupid. I think u are all beautiful and strong and smart! I appreciate those conservative women who have sent me some great articles! I respect u, stay involved!”
Oh, really!
Some observations:
1. This is what political parties deserve when they bestow pandering campaign titles on celebrities who are unqualified by education, temperment or experience for the responsibilities of the job. Longoria is essentially a beauty contestant who got lucky. Her college degree is in kinesiology, which is about as far from political science as you can get. She was chosen for the position of campaign co-chair to pander to Hispanics, and because she looks good in a gown. Her presence in the campaign is cynical and degrading, and the Democrats deserve this embarrassment in every way.
2. Longoria’s “apology” makes no sense, and is unbelievable on its face. “I use Twitter as a platform for all Americans and their opinions”??? Oh, like Republican opinions? Presumably not. So Eva Longoria, to bolster the First Amendment, re-tweets sentiments that she doesn’t agree with at all, but only insulting, inflammatory, obscene anti-Romney speech she doesn’t agree with, not substantive pro-Romney speech, because THAT would be clearly inappropriate for someone representing the President, whereas calling his opponent a racist twat isn’t. Have I got that straight, Eva? You apparently don’t just think conservative women are stupid, you think everybody is stupid. Tell me: who re-tweets without comment a statement they don’t mean to endorse?
3. Note that Longoria’s apology does not apologize for calling Romney a racist, misogynist, and a part of a woman’s anatomy.
4. If Longoria doesn’t think conservative women are stupid, why did she re-tweet a message that says they are? Is Pazuzu now using Twitter?
5. The Obama campaign’s strategy, despicably and contemptibly, has been to employ scaremongering tactics to encourage division along gender and racial fault-lines. Some of the results of these hateful methods can be seen on Twitter in the frightening increase in violent messages threatening Mitt Romney, and the apparent increase in incidents of vandalism of Republican displays, signs and bumper stickers. (I am in Virginia, and it is epidemic.) Longoria’s conduct is part of this strategy. If it is not, then let me see the President, Debby Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic leadership tell her to step down, and to disavow all of her tweet. They won’t do it. They won’t do it, because they are perfectly happy to keep the word out that Republicans are racist and misogynist.
6. No, Longoria’s message is no worse than some that tea party forces and others circulate to feed the fears of the ignorant, by suggesting that the President is a Muslim, a non-citizen, a Socialist, or a traitor. But a high campaign official who made an equivalent statement to Longoria’s would be bounced immediately.
Oh, and I nearly forgot:
What an idiot.
_________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: Wallpaper Hell
Ethics Alarms 
Indeed.
“But a high campaign official who made an equivalent statement to Longoria’s would be bounced immediately.”
She is a direct representative of President Obama (campaign). Yes there are a lot of horrible statements on both sides, but she as his representative should be canned and he should make an apology. Every poorly worded or insulting statement of the officers in the Romney Campaign have been addressed or clarified by Romney, I give him points for that as it is the ethical thing to do, it is debatable if it was done from political necessity or based on character but the response has been appropriate. Where is the President on this?
And that was a terrible apology by her.
Even worse, didn’t this “apology” come after she claimed her Twitter account was hacked?
Yup. Which is why I invoked my rarely used right to call her an idiot. The whole episode exposes her as someone who shouldn’t be allowed out of her trailer without adult supervision.
Oh jeez, ‘twitter is bugging out’ and then ‘sorry if[!] people were offended..’
Unconvincing lie + pathetic apology.
Unless she gives a real apology I hope L’Oreal drops her as a spokeswoman even if the Democrats don’t. She said/agreed that half their customers are stupid.
Here is another example of scaremongering.
Those are stories that we need to remember, Michael. The case of Robert Bork and Ted Kennedy was another such.
This wasn’t an example of scaremongering. I’m with the rest of your post, but that’s out of leftfield.
Oh, sure it is. What is the sub-text of the message? It’s “the Republicans are going to take away your contraception” (which absolutely nobody has proposed, that I’m aware of.) And referring to a potential President as “racist” (“They’re going to put y’all back in chains!”) is per se scaremongering. Otherwise the re-tweeted tweet is just name calling. Now “twat” is name-calling. Strange name-calling.
Ryan has supported bills that outlaw contraception. Romney wants businesses to be able to refuse contraception coverage for their employees. Romney wants to defund planned parenthood. Romney supports outlawing abortion. I think the Misogyny comment is well earned.
The racist comment comes from the racial attacks on the President that you continue to pretend are not racial. I don’t agree that they make Romney racist… just willing to pander to racists.
Scaremongering would require trumping up issues that don’t exist, and Romney’s anti-women platform is clearly fair game. You may have a point on the racial comments, though. Romney’s policies are disproportionately bad for blacks (due to blacks disproportionately being in the lower economical classes), but that seems like more of a coincedence than intent.
tgt, you’re more precise than this. Ryan has not, advocated any such thing. It’s a smear. See http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-congressman-falsely-claims-ryan-voted-ban-all-birth-control_649961.html. Romney has said he would like to see Roe over-turned. That would not ban abortion, and Romney has not said he would “ban abortion.” THAT’s a lie. And Planned Parenthood should be “defunded” which would not kill it by any means. That’s another “Big Bird” argument. Why shouldn’t people pay for their own contraception? Opposing that policy is hardly misogynist.
Note that it was the President who approved the Jesse Helms trick, “He’s not one of us” not Romney.
tgt, you’re more precise than this. Ryan has not, advocated any such thing. It’s a smear. See http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-congressman-falsely-claims-ryan-voted-ban-all-birth-control_649961.html.
Ryan sponsored Akin’s personhood bill that would ban contraceptives. That’s the point of personhood bills and amendments.
Romney has said he would like to see Roe over-turned. That would not ban abortion, and Romney has not said he would “ban abortion.” THAT’s a lie.
If you don’t ban abortion, what’s the point in overturning Roe vs Wade? Maybe I was inexact. Romney (in his most recent incarnation) is for limiting the legality of abortion and access to abortion.
And Planned Parenthood should be “defunded” which would not kill it by any means. That’s another “Big Bird” argument.
Planned Parenthood is singled out among other health providers. It’s nothing at all like the big bird argument. Also, I have not claimed Planned Parenthood would not survive. It absolutely would, just providing less cheap and free services to (mostly) poor women.
Why shouldn’t people pay for their own contraception? Opposing that policy is hardly misogynist.
That’s not at issue. Please try again. (Even if it was at issue, it’s all the same reasons that X-Rays and inhalers should be covered. It’s only singled out because nobody is trying to limit access to X-Rays and inhalers.)
Note that it was the President who approved the Jesse Helms trick, “He’s not one of us” not Romney.
Not related to my comment. I’m ignoring it.
Allowing the states to decide for themselves if they want to ban abortion.
If the 19th Amendment were repealed, it would not ban women from voting nationwide, but simply return that power to Congress and the states.
If the 19th Amendment were repealed, it would not ban women from voting nationwide, but simply return that power to Congress and the states.
Specifically so they can ban abortion.
So?
So, Michael Ejercito’s comment was pointless, and my comment that Romney is anti-abortion is accurate.
I meant, so what if abortion is banned?
SMP,
Completely different discussion. We’re talking about what Romney’s positions are and what they mean, not whether said positions are good or bad.
You brought it up, TGT!
You brought it up, TGT!
Not down here I didn’t. Whether being anti-abortion is good or bad is irrelevant at the point where you interjected. In either case, Romney is still against abortion. He’s now claimed that he vetoed every bill that was in favor of choice, further validating my statement. Jack and Micheal E. don’t have legs to stand on here.
The personhood amendment does NOT outlaw contraception, nor is it intended to. What netroot maniacs are you reading these days?
“If you don’t ban abortion, what’s the point in overturning Roe vs Wade?” Oh, just eliminating a phony “right” that was never in the Constitution and was put there in an opinion that even abortion-supporting legal authorities agree is an embarrassment. The American public should have the right to decide that abortion is the taking of a life, and should not be available without restrictions. That decision should not be precluded by non-democratic court edict. Moreover, the President has nothing to do with banning abortion. Over-turning it would leave it up to the states, where it belonged and belongs. And, of course, regulating abortion is not banning it.
All those rich pro-abortion advocates should be able to fund Planned Parenthood. There is no reason why it should be added to the government’s bill.
“it’s all the same reasons that X-Rays and inhalers should be covered. It’s only singled out because nobody is trying to limit access to X-Rays and inhalers.” Please. Sex is voluntary and recreational, if not aimed at producing children. Pay for your own fun. X-rays and inhalers are health CARE. The Sandra Fluke argument is certifiably bats, and a good place to draw the line where the government should not be expected to pay for activities and risks people choose, but don’t have to, to engage in. And it does not make Romney, or me, misogynisst to say so. It’s an offensive position, tgt. “Give me what I want, or you hate me.” Bullshit.
My point about the ad was this: Obama has run the most divisive campaign since George Wallace, seeking to use wedge issues to divide and vilify. I see absolutely none of that in the Romney campaign, including the “47%” remark you like so much. Romney’s positions are not hostile to any group of Americans, though they have been characterized that way. Which I suppose is why someone like you has been gulled into believing Romney wants to ban contraception and abortion.
The personhood amendment does NOT outlaw contraception, nor is it intended to. What netroot maniacs are you reading these days?
*sigh* Personhood amendments do outlaw IUDs and most forms of hormonal birth control, as those contraceptives stop a fertilized egg from implanting.
“If you don’t ban abortion, what’s the point in overturning Roe vs Wade?” Oh, just eliminating a phony “right” that was never in the Constitution and was put there in an opinion that even abortion-supporting legal authorities agree is an embarrassment. The American public should have the right to decide that abortion is the taking of a life, and should not be available without restrictions. That decision should not be precluded by non-democratic court edict. Moreover, the President has nothing to do with banning abortion. Over-turning it would leave it up to the states, where it belonged and belongs. And, of course, regulating abortion is not banning it.
By your logic, we should overturn Citizen’s United v. FEC, Marbury v. Madison, and Brown v. Board of Ed. There was never a right in the constitution that corporations are people, that judges could review executive decisions (just legislative ones), or that children have the right to equal schooling. The American public should have the right to decide that corporations aren’t people, that judges shouldn’t review executive decisions, and that blacks should be kept out of white schools. The decisions should not be precluded by non-democratic court edict. The President who says he wants these cases overturned would have nothing to do with limiting the rights of corporations, freeing himself from judicial review, and discriminating against blacks. Over-turning them would leave them up to the states, where they belonged and belong. Of course, limiting the rights of corporations does not limit the rights of corporations, limiting review does not lessen review, and allowing discrimination against blacks does not allow discrimination against blacks.
Your argument is bunk, bunk, bunk. The supreme court is there specifically to protect rights that the majority does not necessarily agree with.
Also your selective quote was misleading. My actual statement: “If you don’t ban abortion, what’s the point in overturning Roe vs Wade? Maybe I was inexact. Romney (in his most recent incarnation) is for limiting the legality of abortion and access to abortion.”
Your comments on restrictions not being a complete ban seem to be arguing against chimera.
All those rich pro-abortion advocates should be able to fund Planned Parenthood. There is no reason why it should be added to the government’s bill.
The Planned Parenthood funding in question isn’t about abortion. It’s about low cost health services for poor people. Anyway, your logic is stupid. One of the responsibilities of government is assisting in the health of the people. We know the free market won’t. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean it should be cut from the budget and paid for by those that do agree. I don’t agree with drone strikes, but that doesn’t mean drone strikes should be paid for by neocons. It’s an invalid argument.
“it’s all the same reasons that X-Rays and inhalers should be covered. It’s only singled out because nobody is trying to limit access to X-Rays and inhalers.” Please. Sex is voluntary and recreational, if not aimed at producing children. Pay for your own fun. X-rays and inhalers are health CARE. The Sandra Fluke argument is certifiably bats, and a good place to draw the line where the government should not be expected to pay for activities and risks people choose, but don’t have to, to engage in. And it does not make Romney, or me, misogynisst to say so. It’s an offensive position, tgt. “Give me what I want, or you hate me.” Bullshit.
No more hip replacements Running is voluntary and recreational. Pay for your own fun. Hell. Walking is unnecessary, you could be in a wheelchair instead. That you don’t understand that contraception is healthcare says everything.
The latter part of your argument is awesome, you claim that necessary health services for women are just a desire. You might as well say that not being catcalled is just a desire. That being treated equally is just a desire. They are desires, but they are also demanded by the golden rule, and general standards of fairness.
My point about the ad was this: Obama has run the most divisive campaign since George Wallace, seeking to use wedge issues to divide and vilify. I see absolutely none of that in the Romney campaign, including the “47%” remark you like so much. Romney’s positions are not hostile to any group of Americans, though they have been characterized that way. Which I suppose is why someone like you has been gulled into believing Romney wants to ban contraception and abortion.
You’re acting like SMP here. You are making claims that are completely counter to reality, and then projecting your insanity on others. To do this, you ignore actual counter arguments in favor of strawmen and completely misrepresent the people you support. It’s, well, silly.
Sigh! yourself. Outlawing a form of contraception is not “outlawing contraception.” This is campaign ad-style deceit. If we pass a law outlawing absinthe, we are not “banning alcohol.” Birth control pills, condoms and many other forms are not mentioned in the bill, ergo contraception remains legal and viable. Then there’s the fact that the bill was for show, and that Romney has not endorsed it. Otherwise, good point.
More later.
A) The bill bans all drinks with alcohol content over 4%, but you can’t call it a ban on alcohol, because there are forms of alcohol with less than a 4% content. You’re rationalizing.
B) Most birth control pills are actually banned. Try again.
C) A bill for show? So it’s something that Ryan endorsed specifically so people could see this is what he believes? That’s a negative, not a positive.
D) As noted, it doesn’t matter that this wasn’t Romney. It’s a direct attack on your comment. You absolutely should have known your comment was false.
E) Looks like all your criticisms are junk. The irony of your sarcastic “Good Point” is excellent.
A) The bill bans all drinks with alcohol content over 4%, but you can’t call it a ban on alcohol, because there are forms of alcohol with less than a 4% content. You’re rationalizing. No, I’m right. Your statement was absolute. And the most common forms of birth control remain available under even that stupid bill. The alcohol analogy stinks, but you’re wrong there too: alcohol is not banned.
B) Most birth control pills are actually banned. Try again. You try again—if some pills aren’t banned, contraception isn’t banned. There’s no way out for you. Your statement was deceitful.
C) A bill for show? So it’s something that Ryan endorsed specifically so people could see this is what he believes? That’s a negative, not a positive. Hardly, since the issue is whether ROMNEY will ban contraceptives. The answer remains “never.” Fake issue. Obama smear.
D) As noted, it doesn’t matter that this wasn’t Romney. It’s a direct attack on your comment. You absolutely should have known your comment was false. My comment was factual and true, as I repeat in #1. Nobody is proposing that contraception be unavailable to women. Including Ryan.
E) Looks like all your criticisms are junk. The irony of your sarcastic “Good Point” is excellent. It looks to ME like the champion of integrity in argument has decided, as a final hedge against that box seat at Camden Yards he is about to owe me, to adopt the Obama campaign’s sad strategy of grotesquely exaggerating and distorting the character and positions of the GOP ticket to frighten voters.
A) See below.
B) I directly contradicted your lie. My statement here stands. Your response is unrelated to my specific criticism of your statement
C) Your response is unrelated to my statement, and was covered in D originally.
D) The attack I responded to here was on my use of Ryan. Your response doesn’t touch it.
E) It looks like you’re misreading my arguments.
In sum, B, C, and D all showed errors in your statement. You have tried to change the subject in each one instead of simply noting that they were valid attacks on pieces of your statement. You could fix the problems in your statement, but instead you tried to make it look like they weren’t there.
A is the only spot where you actually had something valid to say, and here, you are not consistent. Do you remember your previous post: “The Ethics of Bloomberg’s Soft Drink Ban”. Was that statement an absolute as well? I believe we used them in the same way. I agree that not all contraceptions would be banned by the bills, just like not all soda consumption would be banned by Bloomberg. Both are still lowercase b bans and neither statement is unethical.
ARRGH! Just wrote a detailed response, and lost it.It’s 2:30, and I won’t have time tomorrow. Short version:
1. Ryan is not Romney, and Ryan did NOT advocate banning contraception. You’re just wrong.
2. Restricting abortion isn’t banning it.
3. It was never a proper Constitutional right, and Roe is bad law. That’s why you want it overturned. But the President can’t ban abortion anyway.
4. Obama signed off on an operation he had no greater involvement in whatsoever. It is no different from Romney hiring women advocated by a staffer.He get credit for saying yes, and having good people to advise him.
5. Good people to advise him! THAT would be refreshing in the White House!
6. No reason why I should have to pay for Planned Parenthood. All those rich abortion-loving Hollywood actresses certainly can make up what the government stops paying.
7. People should pay for their own contraception. Sex without the intent to procreate is recreation—X-rays are health care. This is a great place to draw the line where certain conducts, choices and risks should be borne by the participants, not society.
8. My last point is only that the Obama campaign has been the one embracing hate and divisiveness—the primary betrayal of Obama’s claim to leadership, and in my view, what most disqualifies him from office (OK, second most). Accusing Romney of hate toward any groups is delusional.
Your comment seems to have reappeared, and I responded. Individual hits:
1) My usage of Ryan was appropriate. It was in response to this statement: “It’s ‘the Republicans are going to take away your contraception’ (which absolutely nobody has proposed, that I’m aware of.) ”
Ryan has not spoken out directly against on contraception, but he has advocated for bills that would ban common contraception.
2) Strawman
3) Bad logic
4) This is related to nothing in this thread
5) Again, unrelated
6) No reason I should pay for anything the government does that I disagree with. Stupid argument.
7) We pay for all kinds of recreation. Hell, my inhaler only gets used for recreation. I have excercise induced asthma. Basic recreation is part of healthcare, and sex is the most common form of recreation in adults.
8) And it’s still stupid. You’re redefining divisiveness and hate completely.
Boy! You just used every one of your standard rhetorical retreat devices in that last post. Jack really gave you a working over, didn’t he?
Again, no attack on my actual arguments.
Again, no coherent arguments to refute.
What do you find incoherent?
I find trite talking points that are without merit.
What do you see as a trite talking point? (I’m assuming this was in response to “What do you find incoherent?”)
Yesss… because all I saw was a list of them. Same trite stuff. “Incoherent” was a misnomer. Matters little, though.
Name 1. Otherwise this is just a general, unfounded accusation. Again.
(If there’s something that’s a trite talking point – something that isn’t valid – then I’d like to be given the opportunity to repudiate it or, if I was simply unclear, correct it.)
Go back to your own comments of October 25th.
That isn’t an example. Sorry. I have multiple comments. Point to one specific comment and one specific trite talking point invalid argument please. Since I seem to have many trite arguments, this should be easy.
That’s just it. Mucho multiplicities. Pick one.