I’m not suggesting that liberals don’t do and say stupid things. They do, and they’ve been pointed out in this thread.
My point is that the author of the thread has, as per his usual, fucked up because he’s in over his head talking about such things (full disclosure: I generally am, too. But I realize and admit it). And so, he yet again has to have someone else pull his feet out of the fire and do his homework for him.
Lame! I, too, wish to express my outrage at this stupid liberal idea of the day. Ted Cruz is a disaster and a nightmare, but this cartoon was over the top and out of line.
Hey, paper!
Leave those kids alone!
Well, the thing about Clothahump is that he is absolutely correct, every time, without exception. That much is pretty amazing. I am pretty fucking hard-nosed myself, but I do make mistakes and back down when I should. Most of the time. We should admire Clothahump for his total unwavering inerrancy.
I have met a few people who were almost as constantly correct as he is, but only ever almost.
I’m not jumping to find a potential racist angle, but the cartoon fails because:
Mocking a pol’s kids, if they are underage and even if they’re being used by their parent in photo-ops is crass (I’m willing to view Bristol Palin as a borderline case, since she turned 18 during her mother’s campaign and was already pregnant at the time); and
The mixing of Christmas costuming with the stereotypical organ-grinder’s monkey(s) doesn’t work, because the organ grinder (and monkey) is not traditionally a Christmas idea, as far as I know. I can’t offhand think of a single depiction that was Christmas linked, though admittedly I haven’t seen all that many of them.
Don’t know if the cartoonist is liberal, but this was stupid and offensive, in my view. Little kids shouldn’t be attacked or mocked by adults for any reason, including the politics of their parents, even if they are used by their parents for political purposes.
Wiki sez the cartoonist is generally liberal. Anyway, it’s a terrible cartoon, and she should be roundly criticized for it. I think I get that the target was Cruz for using his kids as props, rather than the kids themselves. But 1) pretty much all politicians enlist their innocent and clueless kids in their ads; and 2) it’s a badly done and offensive cartoon.
At least the paper retracted it and apologized. So there’s that.
Since when is the corporatist Washington Post liberal?
Since it went after a [del]Republican[/del] batshit insane Tea Partier.
Does that also apply to a fetus? Or must Chelsea’s child be born before it’s offensive to opine it was conceived as a political prop?
I don’t know, but such “opining” is insulting to Chelsea, as well as just ridiculous (as if it’s easy for women to time their pregnancies perfectly, or assuming that Chelsea is happy to rent her womb to her mother’s campaign).
With such a long campaign season, and a relatively young, recently married couple like Chelsea and her husband, random chance would seem to favor the likelihood of her being pregnant and having a baby at some point during the campaign.
Chelsea was long criticized by the right when she was little, just for the way she looked. And the right also tries to claim that Michele Obama is really a man, and her daughters are adopted.
Hey, black wives matter!
Sure. But not in mainstream media.
I appreciate the links. But I’m not sure what you’re saying. None of those links appear to demonstrate anyone in mainstream media criticizing Chelsea Clinton while she lived in the White House, or claiming that Michele Obama is a man or that their children are adopted.
.
What if they did? “They do it too” is neither news nor a defense.
Quite true, never claimed otherwise. Rick Kitchen brought up right-wing assholery against Chelsea (as a child) and the Obamas, which exists and is fucking stupid. I just think the WaPo cartoon is a bit different from that. Bullshit attacks calling Michelle a “she-male” (to quote one of the links above) haven’t–to the best of my knowledge–appeared in a major news outlet’s editorial page.
But if I’m wrong, I’d like to know.
No, that sounds more like Rush Limbaugh stuff.
I just saw the Cruz ad that I thing the cartoon referred to. Our Boy reading really strange story books to his daughters, e.g. The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, or some such, with a cartoon Mrs. Clinton as the Grinch. He had it coming.
Also, I don’t see the withdrawn cartoon so much as an attack on the Cruz children as a slap at Sen, Cruz for injecting his children into a political ad in such a crude and Sophomoric way. The ad was not informative, or amusing or even provocative. It was just stupid.