The Axis of Unethical Conduct “pounced” on newly nominated Trump running mate J.D. Vance this week over a “re-surfaced” video in which Vance said that the country is being run “by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” The comment was made in an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson when Vance was beginning his ultimately successful campaign for the Senate.
Observations:
1. Gee, just the GOP needs—TWO candidates who lack functioning filters between their brains and their mouths.
2. It was a stupid, stupid, gratuitously offensive ad hominem comment. It wasn’t even true: powerful and influential women in the Democratic Party at the time included former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Energy Janet Granholm, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and many others, including Jill Biden. All of these have children, and I doubt that all of them have cats, or if any of them have cats. A lot of voters do have cats, however. And a lot of voters, like me, are friends with quite a few childless, unmarried women who have cats, and are smart, kind and productive members of the community.
3. However, the dumb statement was made four years ago before Vance was a Senator and had a somewhat greater obligation not to engage in mean, obnoxious and false characterizations of women. The Axis is more interested in misrepresenting what Trump says and dredging up old cheap shots by Vance than informing the public regarding the currently relevant statements by Kamala Harris, notably her insistence that Joe Biden was a dazzling maelstrom of intellectual vigor when she knew he was leaking IQ points like a sieve. She was part of a conspiracy to lie to the American people about their elected leader; that’s a lot more relevant to the election than Vance being a jerk while dishing with fellow jerk Tucker Carlson four years ago.
4. Campaign tip for J.D.: the proper response to this manufactured controversy is to say, “Yes, I did say that, and it was stupid, unfair and wrong. And I like cats.” Instead, he is extending the life of this kerfuffle by trying to defend his words. Badly.
“Obviously it was a sarcastic comment. People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said,” Vance told Megyn Kelly. “The substance of what I said, Megyn – I’m sorry, it’s true.”
No, it’s not.
Vance said he was not criticizing people who do not have children. Gee, J.D., it sure sounded like that! “This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-children.”
Oh. Here’s another suggestion: if you want to criticize the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-children, say that the Democratic Party has become anti-family and anti-children, and leave single woman and cats out of it.
“The simple point that I made is that having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way,” he said. “I’m making an argument that our entire society has become skeptical and even hateful towards the idea of having kids.”
If that point was so simple to make, how come you made it so incompetently, unfairly and disrespectfully, J.D.?
When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Ethics Alarms 
When I heard JD Vance’s comment, without his addendums, I thought it was perfectly clear. He was attacking an anti-familial, anti-child group that was out of touch with the common man. I have not understood the confusion. This led to a discussion with my husband, and I am again having to contemplate the various differences in culture throughout the US.
I grew up in a blue collar household, where as my husband grew up in a white collar household. The way Vance spoke is acceptable and clear in my blue collar vernacular. However, I have noticed that the vernacular and phrasing between my blue collar background and those with a more white collar background is very different.
As an example, I know that in my background, a low class worker of whatever skin color can refer to themselves (or any group that they are obviously a part of) as niggers without any offense meant. The word itself is no worse than watermelon (replacement for Alleluia in practices during Lent), yellow (coward), or FORD (found on road dead).
It is common, in blue collar circles at least, to make fun of the cat ladies for being anti-man, anti-family, anti-child, and usually anti-reality or at least out of touch. This has to do with the ladies many of us know in our communities who are unmarried, virulently misandrous, child-hating, and own upwards of 10 cats. Referring to people as childless cat ladies is like calling a woman who acts in a certain way a Karen. Is that unfair to people named Karen, well yes, but it is a common enough stereotype that one can use it to shortcut conversation.
Of course, when one is on the national stage, as Vance is now, and speaking to many people who may not understand your vernacular, you must work harder to speak clearly and to not offend people with either regional or class based commentary. The slang that one person is familiar with is not something that will be appropriate to someone else.
We are of one mind on this one Sarah
Not everyone’s college educated and working in a salaried, managerial position or a profession? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!
yep, ad hominid. Blue collar, yep. Better to restate than defend, yep. Not talking like a politician, PRICELESS. The folks that find the shoe fitting are not likely to vote for him anyhow.
Is “cat lady” the underlying definition of the highly sought after “suburban woman” vote? Which seems to be the demographic that decides presidential elections these days.
No OB. Sarah’s definition is exactly what defines the quintessential “cat lady”. Up until the last part of the 20th century these women were referred to as old spinsters. I recall hearing the term crazy cat lady in the 80’s and today the term includes women childless or not but behave in a manner similar and we now call them Karens. There is no joy that they cannot dispel.
Regarding the truth of the statement, upon first reading it, I interpreted it to be referring to the bureaucracy, rather than elected officials. This is, I think, in part because I have been reading other in-depth analyses of social and governmental issues, and they tend to focus on that aspect.
I don’t remember having seen any hard data on it, but I suspect the statement is far more true when considering that as the intended meaning. I do not know if that was the intended meaning, however, and Vance was clearly not clear enough in any case.