Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Whoopi’s better off anyway. Slim-fast doesn’t work. It’s just a rip-off. Their “diet” program specifically states that using their product along with following a sensible diet and exercise regimin will help reduce weight. No kidding. Guess what? You can lose weight by eating right and exercising, and you don’t even have to use Slim-fast, or any other “diet” product.

What’s really fascinating about this is that the owner of Slim-Fast, F. Daniel Abraham, is a major Democrat donor and has spent over a million bucks so far to defeat Bush. I understand that it was his CEO who made the decision to drop the Whoopstress. That leaves the boycott proponents in a bit of a quandary. Do they support the guy who supports Kerry or boycott the product to show their displeasure with his company’s move?

I’m glad that you didn’t frame this as a free speech issue, as Goldberg herself tried to. She doesn’t seem to have quite figured out this whole free speech business and apparently thinks that it has something to do with people not giving her money. The fact is that large and angry men in black, unmarked helicoptors did not swoop down on her for fat-mouthing the prez. That’s pretty much all we’re guaranteed.

As demonstrated by Anita Bryant back in the seventies, who publicly expressed her personal convictions about homosexuals, there is sometimes a price to be paid. Bryant’s comments were delivered without the sarcasm, but they still cost her a lucrative contract because of the negative publicity for the company.

Welcome to reality, Whoopi.

Thanks for the great Johnny Carson quote.

MOTOTH, excellent point about free speech. I agree. I do recommend keeping an eye on the Patriot Act though! What Whoopi fears is now possible under the act!

Woody,

I hope you’re as familiar with the hateful screed uttered against the Clintons by Don Imus, at a White House correspondence dinner, a number of years ago.

I wrote about this Whoopi controversy on my weblog, and got tons of hits!

First, Unilever’s move was pre-emptive, wanting to nip a boycott in the bud. The fact that Goldberg’s response accompanied the announcement, implies collusion in rendering a not very difficult decision.

Or injurous one financially, for Ms. Whoopi. The company engineer’s a ‘moral’ out, Goldberg learns a lesson, but loses not much money, and the Right is happy with it’s hollow victory.

But, what does bother me, is the ability of the Right to move one of it’s petty, shrill and manipulated faux outrages into mainstream media. The MoveOn.org ‘Hitler’ ad flap is another example.

If Liberals truly control the media, why didn’t Ann Coulter’s hateful and summarily refuted attack on Max Cleland’s war wounds, get this kind of press?

Bert, what products does Ann Coulter endorse? I really don’t see your point. Whoopi got canned for the same reason ad agencies are unlikely to solicit Coulter’s services. They want to sell their products, and in a 50-50 country somebody who pisses off one half of the country can only hurt business.

I don’t see how the old Ann Coulter defense (trotting out Coulter’s name every time somebody on the left gets called on something) really applies here. A better comparison is what happened with Rush Limbaugh and ESPN. There is the example of faux manufactured outrage against somebody on the right you’re looking for.

Somehow I don’t remember the left becoming outraged at

…Limbauh’s firing.

Again Martin,

You conviently confused my point(s) to better serve your real agenda (the Coulter defense), but I will humor you in this instance.

But, what does bother me, is the ability of the Right to move one of it’s petty, shrill and manipulated faux outrages into mainstream media. The MoveOn.org ‘Hitler’ ad flap is another example.

Another example, is the Conservative assault on ‘The Reagans’ mini-series. Drudge’s perpetuation of slanderous adultery charges against John Kerry, were eventually debunked. However, outrage from the Left never got cable news airtime. And, the indefensivable Coulter allegations questioning the veracity of Cleland’s war injuries (which were repeated on this very website), never got the kind of coverage Whoopi’s comments garnered.

If Liberals truly control the media, why didn’t Ann Coulter’s hateful and summarily refuted attack on Max Cleland’s war wounds, get this kind of press?

Bert, you ignorant slut (don’t delete me, Watchblog Manager, I’m adding a smiley— :)). Also, Bert is family.

It’s just not true that the left’s outrage about Cleland, the Reagan mini-series, the Move-on Hitler flap etc., NEVER got cable airtime. Do you really have a tv screen split three ways between MSNBC, FOX, and CNN (which you watch 24 hours a day) that would allow you to make such a blanket claim? I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen all three issues discussed from both sides on cable news programs. In particular, many Democrats routinely complain about the Cleland thing—Kerry has even included it in his stump speech. Ms. Heinz even cites it as the reason she switched her party affiliation. All of this has been covered extensively in the media, including on cable news.

You say that outrage over the remarks of conservatives never get hyped in the media. I offered Limbaugh’s firing from ESPN to counter this assertion. So let me add, since you’re persisting, Michael Savage’s remarks which got him fired from MSNBC, Trent Lott’s ill-advised birthday toast which resulted in a media-storm that got him demoted from majority leader, and Pat Robertson’s roundly castigated and disavowed Looney-tunes assertion that 9-11 was God’s punishment on gays.

There has been plenty of outrage directed at conservatives—more, I’d say, than has been directed at leftists. A senator from Vermont routinely accuses the Vice President of treason on the floor of the Senate, of promoting a war to cynically profit from Halibuton Iraq contracts (which even said Vermont senator must know is false), but it’s the VP’s response, a suggestion that said senator go pleasure himself, that gets plastered all over the news.

The Reagan mini-series flap was perfectly justified. They had Reagan saying, in personal settings for which there’s no historical record, all sorts of bigoted remarks which were totally inconsistent with his public remarks and character. Can you imagine if somebody made a movie about Martin Luther King (a comparable hero for the left) in which they portrayed him making hateful, bigoted remarks in private to his wife and friends? The left would have a hissy-fit, and justifiably so.

Regarding Coulter and Cleland’s war wounds: the Democrats chose to make a poster boy of military heroism somebody who elicits sympathy because he’s in a wheelchair. They tried to use this sympathy for political gain, and all Coulter did is point out, for a public who might not have known, specifially how Cleland got those wounds. Full disclosure, and totally fair. We can honor Cleland’s service, and should do so, but Kerry et al were going on and on about how this man “left his limbs” in Vietnam. Cleland deserves respect for his service, and sympathy—but not deference— for his self-inflicted wounds.

Thanks Martin,

For providing me with ammunition!

If you go back to my basic premise, the incidents of outrage I refer to, originate outside mainstream broadcast news (cable, networks) like Conservative radio and ‘freeper’ message boards, then get picked up by Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

The incidents you cite (Savage, Limbaugh, Lott), all had their orgin from broadcast news.

and all Coulter did is point out, for a public who might not have known, specifially how Cleland got those wounds

You’re really amazing, Martin! All Coulter did, was accuse Cleland of lying about how and where he suffered the loss of 3 limbs! Absolute lies that were repeated here, may I add again!!

You Conservatives gleefully impuned the NYTimes for the Jason Blair scandal, for similar offensives that pale in comparison to the J. Edgar Hoover-like antics that are the hallmark of Ann Coulter’s journalisitic bile. The Blair scandal cost the top two NYTimes’ editors their jobs.

When will Coulter finally have her judgement day?

Bert, what does it actually mean that instances of conservative outrage have to start on blogs, radio, and internet message boards before they ever filter into mainstream media, if they ever do, while leftist outrage—even about things ultimately discredited (like Wilson)—get major media airtime on network news and on the front pages of newspapers from day one? You’re defeating your own point with this observation.

Negative spin about the right doesn’t NEED radio shows and blogs—they’re the editorial policy of the mainstream media outlets. Thanks for reminding us of the extent of leftist media bias.

Wilson was all over the front pages of places like the New York and Los Angeles Times while his story had even an ounce of unsupported credibility. Now the same papers bury stories of his collapse on page 15 while the blogosphere has to take up the slack while the mainstream media desperately tries to change the subject to some other absurd line of attack against conservatives.

Once again, I’m surprised how the left can only talk about Coulter, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh when they talk about the media. You guys are definitely hanging on their every word far more than I am. I wonder why. Why don’t you folks just turn the channel, stop obsessively reading Coulter and tuning into Limbaugh? You own virtually all of the rest of the media, but apparently all you want to do is fixate on the few corners of activity that aren’t clamped beneath the iron fist of the left’s virtual media monopoly.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard leftists start a rant with words like “Last night on Fox, Hannity/O’Reilly said…..”

For the love of god, people, turn the channel and get over the fact that the left’s intellectual conformity has still not reached into every corner of the world. Don’t feel like you’re in danger as long as an ounce of dissent from your otherwise enforced point of view is allowed to remain on the radio or internet.

Martin, putting a smiling face on the end of that kind of name calling is not acceptable. Please do NOT engage in such flagrant violation of our policy on critiquing the messeage, not the messenger. You may not have intended it in a flame baiting way, but, you have no control over how others will read it. This will be the only warning on this matter.

Agree that Whoopi cannot make a strong “free speech” claim, especially if there were really was a groundswell of protest against Slim Fast. She has a right to insult Bush; they have a right to boycott Slim Fast.

At the same time, it is disturbing to me that the bar for outrage was set so low (that is, strict) on this one. I am sure we could go back and find all sort of examples of popular entertainers like Jay Leno telling all sorts of raunchy and/or insulting jokes about Bush and earlier presidents. (Incidentally, the source for the Carson joke was a newspaper summary of Bill Clinton’s My Life.) The one thing that seems to set this incident apart is that it was at a Democratic fundraiser — but that seems more like a reason to be mad at the Democrats, not at Whoopi. Maybe they were boycotting Slim Fast because they didn’t have an effective way to punish the Dems. (Presumably, they were going to vote Republican anyway.)

Anita Bryant is a good example on the other side. The funny thing is, the Florida orange growers later hired Rush Limbaugh! The ESPN example is not very convincing to me. Rush just wasn’t up to dealing with the diversity of the sports world. After what he said about McNabb, no one could take what he said about other Black athletes seriously.

What’s really fascinating about this is that the owner of Slim-Fast, F. Daniel Abraham, is a major Democrat donor and has spent over a million bucks so far to defeat Bush.

The company is based in Florida. I’m guessing they dropped Whoopi for the same reason Disney dropped Moore: Fear of retaliation.

Martin,

I now realize that it is futile to acknowledge your responses to my direct and specific arguments, seeing that you’re unable (or, unwilling) to stay on point. You’d rather misconstrue my words on your way, off on a tangent, with your own agenda.

It is a tiresome routine, and I no longer have the patience for it.

Rush got fired for making comments that had very racist overtones on the job, comments that nobody really knew to expect from even Rush himself. But you take Whoopi Goldberg, and unless you’ve been under a rock, or have never seen her host the academy awards, you should not be surprised when her humor gets ribald or her politics get liberal. That’s just Whoopi.

The fact that Whoppi was fired by white people is what is missing. Dont you see the white man trying to keep black people down especially women! Granted,150 years ago Whoppi would be choppin cotten and singing slave songs, and now in this time and place she is a zillionaire, but even then I bet Whoppi would be out-pickking all the white men, even Bush’s great grandpa if he was working in the same fields. God bless you Whoppi, and please all vote for John Kerry on October fourth. Thank You!!

Wow—I’m impressed that it took so long for someone to jump on the race game in regards to Whoopi. Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever, but I was just waiting, biding my time, before someone got there.

The reality is that Whoopi has the freedom to say whatever she wishes, and the people who pay her to promote their products have the right to choose to keep her on or not. Let’s just take it a couple steps further—lets say that Whoopi advocated killing white people for fun. Woundnt Slim-fast have the natural right to say they dont want her as their spokesperson?

A company can do as they wish. Some companies choose Tiger Woods——if his career path conintues as it has been, possibly fewer companies will choose him in the future. Kobe Bryant is less attractive as a spokesperson because of his adulterous dalliance, regardless of whether he is convicted of rape or not. Companies choose spokespeople based on how it will benefit the company.

Watchblog Manager,

For what it’s worth, I thought Martin’s comment was funny and not insulting:

Bert, you ignorant slut (don’t delete me, Watchblog Manager, I’m adding a smiley— :)).

The first part was a paraphrase from Saturday Night Live’s famous “Point / CounterPoint” skit with Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtain. I thought the smiley was a nice touch!

Scott,

Believe me, after a long time of having verbally tangled with Martin, I actually chuckled and was not insulted, in the least.

And, as innocuous and seemingly respectful Martin’s intention, the aim is to maintain a professional decorum at WatchBlog, by which we will attract new visitors, like you.

Well, I’ve returned. No offense intended, but I’ve washed my mouth out with soap and hereby resolve to mend my ways. Sorry, Bert.

However, the ranting part of my post aside, I was responding specifically to your comments—namely by pointing out the many times Republicans have similarly been put through the meat-grinder for not watching what they say. Limbaugh, Savage, and even your favorite whipping girl, Coulter, have all been fired for making ill-advised comments (Coulter was sent packing from the National Review, I believe, which is hardly a left-wing organ).