Remind me again why Republicans lose the woman vote? Oh, right, they want to control their wombs and come up with crap like this. Mystery solved.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Republicans Compare Pelosi To “Pussy Galore”
May 24th, 2009
32 Comments
I wonder if this is strong enough sexism that even Dennis will recognize it?
That is monumentally stupid. Didn’t they learn ANYTHING from the way Democrats treated Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin?
J.
J.G.Thayer: “That is monumentally stupid. Didn’t they learn ANYTHING from the way Democrats treated Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin?”
Translation: “LOOK OVER THERE!”
Except there’s no there to look at.
Didn’t they learn ANYTHING from the way Democrats treated Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin?
The two were treated as opposite ends of the political spectrum, Clinton as a serious candidate with actual credentials, Palin as worse than a joke, a Jerry Springer show wannabe.
What’s your point?
Geez, WTF is it these days with Pelosi, the GOP, and James Bond?
Right winger “Jay Tea”, who compared “torturing” to “nearly marrying a Jewish mother” and who loses interest with anyone without testes, decides to attack the Dems because the Republicans compared a Democratic leader to “Pussy Galore” (a James Bond nemesis).
Welcome to the right wing’s world of blaming the victim.
Republicans even put Pelosi in the site of a gun in their commercial.
Right wingers: Misogynistic AND eliminationist.
Sick.
American Democrats are sissies in politics and Republicans will continue to attack, as long as it works.
Bengt Larsson: “American Democrats are sissies in politics and Republicans will continue to attack, as long as it works.”
I don’t think it is working.
Well this is the same party that was comparing Barack Obama to a monkey. So maybe they are actually getting less offensive as time progresses?
Didn’t they learn ANYTHING from the way Democrats treated Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin?
Look, up in the sky. It’s the return of False Equivalency Man!
Back this up, Sparky. Show me the produced anti-Hillary and anti-Palin ads that you consider to be the spiritual equal of this RNC spot.
C.S.Strowbridge: “I don’t think it is working.”
Do you think the swift-boating of John Kerry worked?
C.S.Strowbridge: “I don’t think it is working.”
Bengt Larsson: “Do you think the swift-boating of John Kerry worked?”
That was four years ago. And at the time, Bush had a net approval rating that was positive. Things have changed.
Bengt – The swift-boating of Kerry worked because Kerry’s strategy was to ignore/absorb all blows, and he lacked the endurance to take such punishment.
Obama’s strategy has been to ignore the small remarks–”TelePrompter” blah blah–and react with a quick and decisive counter to the larger issues–”Dick Cheney is wrong, and I’m cleaning up his mess.”
Good fighters know the first rule–end the fight quickly.
I should point out, I’m not saying the Democrats should not fight back. I’m saying that the Republicans are hurting themselves with these attacks.
“That was four years ago. And at the time, Bush had a net approval rating that was positive. Things have changed.”
I don’t see what attacks on a candidate has to do with the approval rating of the other candidate. It seems obvious the swift-boating hurt Kerry more than Bush.
“I don’t see what attacks on a candidate has to do with the approval rating of the other candidate.”
You don’t have to convince the electorate your guy is perfect or the other guy is awful, you just have to convince them your guy is better than the other guy.
Back then, Bush had a net positive approval rating, so any flaw in Kerry allowed the Republicans to say, ‘Do you really want change?’
Right now, there’s no one on the Republican side that they can make that claim. You have to have a viable candidate before you attacks can work.
“Obama’s strategy has been to ignore the small remarks–”TelePrompter” blah blah–and react with a quick and decisive counter to the larger issues–”Dick Cheney is wrong, and I’m cleaning up his mess.””
Well, I agree with that on Obama, but now it is about Democrats in Congress, specifically Nancy Pelosi.
“You have to have a viable candidate before you attacks can work.”
Not really. You can bring down the approval of the other side.
Neither Bush nor Cheney were viable, if the Democrats had played their cards right. Bush was a former alcoholic and Cheney a draft-dodger. Only timid incompetence let Democrats not mention these facts (they are both relevant). Part of non-sissyness is to make relevant attacks of your own. You can hardly expect Bush-Cheney to talk about their own negatives.
Dammit, my comment didn’t get posted. Trying again. (if both comments get posted, I prefer the first version).
“You have to have a viable candidate before you attacks can work.”
Not really. Attacks can, in any case, bring down the approval of the other candidate.
Neither Bush nor Cheney were viable candidates if the Democrats had played their cards right. Bush was a former alcoholic and Cheney a draft-dodger (these facts are both relevant). Part of non-sissyness is that you have to make your own relevant attacks. You can hardly expect Bush-Cheney to talk about their own negatives.
Pussy Galore was not a villainess. Has anyone actually seen Goldfinger? She starts out a henchwoman of Goldfinger, who, when told the truth, helps James Bond thwart the whole ‘killing-everyone-in-and-around-Fort-Knox-and-irradiating-the-Gold’ scheme. Just Sayin’
Scoreboard! Scoreboard!
Tyro, it cost a million people’s lives in Iraq, most of them innocent. I can see that this is a too serious issue for you. Personally, I spent some time arguing against a war with Iran (the Bush administration tried to get one started, several times). I felt very lonely doing it. American Democrats don’t argue: they scoff, and snark, and boringly speechify. At their very best, they march.
I spent some time arguing against a war with Iran … American Democrats don’t argue: they scoff, and snark, and boringly speechify. At their very best, they march.
And campaign and win elections. How many votes did your “arguing” deliver on election day?
And campaign and win elections.
A recent development that had more to do with Repubs royally fucking up and making the Dems look good that the actual gains Dems made in their campaign skills.
Pussy Galore was not a villainess. Has anyone actually seen Goldfinger? She starts out a henchwoman of Goldfinger, who, when told the truth, helps James Bond thwart the whole ‘killing-everyone-in-and-around-Fort-Knox-and-irradiating-the-Gold’ scheme. Just Sayin’
Bryan, don’t bother bringing reality into these kinds of discussions. Once a perception takes hold, the truth kind of becomes irrelevant. Look how the characterizations of “Uncle Tom” and “The Ugly American” have become in the public mindset, as compared with how they were truly depicted in the pages of their namesake novels.
Hillary Clinton was attacked, at various points, by both sides for very sexist reasons. Sarah Palin was also slammed on very sexist grounds — the idiots who showed up at her events wearing “SARAH PALIN IS A CUNT” T-shirts, Andrew Sullivan’s obsession with her uterus, and whatnot.
The point I was raising was that there are some very recent, some very potent examples of sexist attacks on prominent political women that were not only incredibly tasteless, but also incredibly ineffective. The GOP has no excuse for not noticing that and learning from it.
There are plenty of ways to go after Pelosi. And lord knows she deserves it. This method is just plain stupid and counterproductive.
Notice how the MasterCard parody ad against Obama’s spending was very powerful — except for the opening mention of his dog. That gave Obama apologists like Oliver the excuse to focus on that part and dismiss the entire ad.
Anyone with half a brain would have foreseen both the “GOP attacks Obama’s dog” and the “GOP makes sexist attack on Pelosi” backlashes. It looks like the people running the GOP ad campaign doesn’t qualify as having at least half a brain.
J.
Tyro, your entire argument is “we won the last election, so neener”. Gloating is just the opposite of whining – it’s immature.
Anyone with half a brain
Unfortunately eliminates anyone at the RNC.
your entire argument is “we won the last election, so neener”.
Basically, yes. It’s hard to argue that the Democrats are a bunch of weaklings in the face of Republican attacks when, well, the end effect is that the Democrats win. But, yeah, I’m sure your “arguments” against attacking Iran helped.
Sarah Palin was also slammed on very sexist grounds
Palin was slammed because she’s a fuckin’ idiot. Well, she is.
ed, you’re entitled to your opinion. It’s completely divorced from reality, but you’re entitled.
You’re also irrelevant. I wasn’t discussing WHY she was slammed, but HOW.
Try to keep up, huh?
J.
One of your better efforts, Mr. Tea. Start with a commentary on an ad produced by the Republican National Committee. Toss in a “Yeah, but the Dems do it too!” like this:
Of course, you shouldn’t actually name any Democrats who engaged in sexist attacks on either. If you did, it might prevent you from adding the coup de grace:
Hillary was attacked by both sides for sexist reasons? Still forgetting to provide examples. But never mind, the real payload follows. A couple of idiots showing up “at her events” (more than one, Mr. Tea?) are the equivalent of the RNC’s attacks on Pelosi.
Stunning, Mr. Tea.
I wasn’t discussing WHY she was slammed, but HOW.
Sarah Palin was legitimately slammed for being a fuckin’ idiot by people calling her out as a fuckin’ idiot. Because Sarah Palin is a fuckin’ idiot. Shit-all stupid, she is.
Please continue to tell us how relevant and important you perceive yourself to be. Thanks in advance.
No, ed, NANCY PELOSI is a fucking idiot. JOE BIDEN is a fucking idiot. Sarah Palin has more successful executive experience than either of the two guys running the White House right now.
As far as me… I’ve long described myself as “a nobody from nowhere.” Thanks for the promotion, but I’ll pass.
J.