Axelrod Lashes Out At Miss California USA
Hot Air:
You need to hear the audience reaction to see how right Omri Ceren was. Again: There’s no joke here. There’s no wit or irony or play on words or anything remotely clever. Unless he’s calling her a dog, and he surely isn’t, the extent of the “punchline” is simply invoking Carrie Prejean in a context that’s meant to be belittling, even though it’s not quite clear how. And yet the audience practically shrieks with glee. To the extent this is any type of humor at all, it’s a sort of in-joke without the joke: The left’s been enjoying a Two Minutes Hate on her for the past few weeks and now suddenly here’s the senior advisor to the president joining in. The laughter, I think, is simply a reflex of surprise and approbation upon discovering that a figure as exalted as Axelrod would stoop to their level of douchebaggery. All things considered, she’d make a great opening joke for The One’s next speech — except, of course, for the fact that he holds the same position on gay marriage that she does.
I listened to the audio of course, and have to say I agree with Hot Air that the White House should be above this kind of thing. It is an innocent joke, some would probably say, but it’s not: Axelrod is a senior adviser to President Obama. He’s a powerplayer in the White House and, therefore, in the country. He has no business attacking Miss California USA publicly.
And – it is quite ironic to see the White House lash out at a woman who agrees with Obama on this issue. Funny that.
Listen to the audio and pay special attention to the reaction from the crowd:
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
As I said, she should have only have been criticized in the context of the pageant. To make her into something she is not and focus on her disproportionately is bad form, poor civility, dumb and a boon to the wannabe martyrs (wartyrs?).
What if he said Mrs Obama, would that be considered an attempt at humor. Would it be excused as easily as Miss California? The Whitehouse seems to have a corner on the market when it comes to idiots and crooks.
I agree that is was inappropriate for a white-house official to stoop to this level. It was probably a careless joke that he probably wished he hadn’t said (which of course doesn’t excuse the fact that he said it), but if that’s the case then it seems deserving of an apology.
And I agree that the most ironic thing is that Obama has said pretty much what Miss California said in different words.
OH dude.. Dude.
You just lost the 2012 careless topless demographic.
Dude.
But the way the question was phrased was were focus groups used to determine the dog name and type (i.e. the Portuguese-American for the water dog). So the name Ms. California would indicate that Obama was still looking to please the opponents of gay marriage by giving the white house pet the name of a misinformed crusader. Sure, it’s tacky, but little more than that.
On the other hand, the “carelessly topless demographic” response was perfect.
Actually Pres. Obama believes gay couples should receive equal marriage rights through civil unions. Miss California only says she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. She has repeatedly refused to say what her views are on civil unions, gay adoptions, etc. As far as her views on fake breasts and soft porn, well, you can see for yourself.
@Wayne
Oh yes, forgive me. I neglected to realize that it was not her opposition to gay marriage that caused the wrath of the left to rain down on her. It was her refusal to state an opinion on civil unions. Thanks for clarifying.
And, I also neglected to remember that posing topless prohibits a person from expressing their opinion when asked for it. Someone should remind the many celebrities who have built their brand on sex, and yet continue to give their opinion even when it is not asked.
“I neglected to realize that it was not her opposition to gay marriage that caused the wrath of the left to rain down on her.”
An opposition to gay marriage according to a holy book she considers fit for consultation regarding the freedoms of others but not herself. That sort of philosophically sprained thinking and morally hypocritical injection of religion into politics is slowly becoming rejected as commonly accepted assertions. Just like Prejean would find doors closed on her twenty-five years ago if she was asked about marriage across ethnicities and she honestly said she was against it, so is one answer regarding same-sex marriage now regarded as wrong. No one is about to unleash any lions on anyone. The question should not have been asked and the repercussion should have been only in the context of the contest, but the fact remains that it is a good thing that some Americans are capable of seeing a hypocritical use of religious reasoning when dealing with political issues that have repercussions for others as not OK. In a sense that reflects a respect for religion for what it is.
Do you think women would have been allowed to become police officers if people in the battle leading up to that decision hadn’t “persecuted” “thought crimes” by raising heck when people foolishly used their own imperfect reasoning to proudly state that women did not belong in uniform?
You mean the same reasoning behind why Obama favors civil unions over marriage?
@Garland
Firstly, the attacks from the left began before the topless photos surfaced. In fact, they likely would not have surfaced without the attacks coming first. So it is clear that, at least originally, the attacks were only about what she said.
Secondly, I reject the idea that someone of faith cannot use their faith as reasoning for a certain moral position if they have ever done anything contrary to that faith. It is a central Christian belief that we are all sinners. The fact that she did something most would consider unbecoming of a Christian does not disqualify from giving her opinion on an issue *when she was asked for it*. Would you have people like her qualify every answer to every quesion with “… but I posed topless, and therefore am an imperfect Christian, so my opinion is completely invalid, and you should ignore it.”?
As for your point about persecution, you are right that people are entitled to say what they want. If someone says something foolish and offends a group of people, that group can say what they want. But the outrage rings a little hollow when her position is shared by the president of the United States, and also 54 percent of the population. I wonder if the “persecution” tactic was let out of the bag a little too soon, and will do more harm than good as it re-enforces the “militant activist” stereotype.
(I went back and read Wayne’s comment again, and can’t help but ponder on this phrase: “equal marriage rights through civil unions”. Nice.)