Wow.
LANSING, Mich. — A coalition of black ministers in Detroit called Monday for U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra to apologize for his Super Bowl ad featuring a young Asian woman speaking broken English to describe the impact of the Democratic incumbent’s economic policies.
The request came a day after an Asian-American group called the ad “very disturbing.”
The Michigan Republican began taking heat after his ad targeting Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow as “Debbie Spenditnow” ran statewide Sunday during the Super Bowl. Some detractors said the ad was racially insensitive, while national GOP consultant Mike Murphy tweeted that it was “really, really dumb.” Foreign Policy magazine managing editor Blake Hounshell called the ad “despicable.”
“The Asian woman speaking in this video would be no different than him having a black person speaking in slave dialect,” Williams said in a statement Monday. “If Pete Hoekstra does not see any wrong in this commercial, he doesn’t deserve to be in the race.”
The 30-second ad created by media strategist Fred Davis of California-based Strategic Perception Inc opens with the sound of a gong and shows the Asian woman riding a bike on a narrow path lined by rice paddies.
Stopping her bike, the woman smiles into the camera and says, “Thank you, Michigan Senator Debbie Spenditnow. Debbie spends so much American money. You borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie Spenditnow.”
The scene then shifts to Hoekstra telling viewers near a cozy fire, “I think this race is between Debbie Spenditnow and Pete Spenditnot.”
Hoekstra defended the ad, calling it a “home run” during an interview Monday with Detroit radio WJR-AM’s Paul W. Smith. He said it’s only “insensitive” to the spending philosophy of Stabenow and Democratic President Barack Obama.
Here she is, ladies and gentlemen… the girl that Pete used to try to scare the living crap out of whitey.
Good God. This isplay the “Gong” whenever you see Long Duk Dong on the screen dippiness and it’s not even a ham-fisted attempt at comedy.
The only difference is, it’s 30 years later and you would think we’d know better. At least ONE person would know better and go “Uh… dude. Let’s talk about this.”
But he APPROVES THIS MESSAGE! This isn’t even a Pac! This is a guy who probably looked at it on his phone after a nice round of golf, laughed his fat neck off and went on with his day.
I am white, but Jewish, and I am not cheap. You also don’t want me balancing your books.
I have met Southerners with thick accents that happen to be very smart even though they sound like “Larry The Cable Guy”
So please, everybody still not living in the 1950s, or even the 1980s, even though Pete is white and very, very stupid, please don’t stereotype us the way he does you.
I am guessing Pete probably doesn’t believe in evolution, but for f***’s sake, dude, could you evolve? Just a little bit?
By Mark Leibovich
In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.
Upon their son’s death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen’s parents’ home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.
He and Karen brought Gabriel’s body home so their children could “absorb and understand that they had a brother,” Santorum says. “We wanted them to see that he was real,” not an abstraction, he says. Not a “fetus,” either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described — “a 20-week-old fetus” — on a hospital form. They changed the form to read “20-week-old baby.”
Let’s get something straight. I understand this is personal. But by putting this photo on his desk in a public office, it’s not. His decision was to do the above. My decision is to find it creepy as hell.
He is insane. He is batcrap crazy. And courtesy of 9 people in Iowa, he is “Surging.” Here is the face of your evangelical candidate, America - a guy who brings a dead fetus home so his kids can play with it like a doll.
You want to talk about Ron Paul’s letters from 1990? Talk about this clear indication of a mental breakdown this loon in a sweater-vest had in 2005.
LOOK AT HIM. LOOK AT HIS PAST. LOOK AT HIS QUOTES.
Look at his actual quote on actual issues, courtesy of “The Week.” (and reactions culled from the reporter)
1. Opposing birth control
Quote: ”One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (Speaking withCaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)Reaction: This is “pretty basic: Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception,” says Irin Carmon at Salon. “Any and all of it.” Threatening to “send the condom police into America’s bedrooms” is pretty bad politics: More than 99 percent of sexually active women have used some form of birth control, and “helping people get access to birth control is actually a popular issue,” supported by 82 percent of Americans. But a national contraception ban is “clearly the world Santorum wants.”
2. Keeping moms at home
Quote: ”In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to. … What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism.” (Santorum’s 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good)Reaction: Santorum is actually right, says Bonnie Alba at Renew America. Degrading “the stay-at-home wife and mother while idolizing women who chose careers” is “certainly part and parcel of the feminist ideology which has twisted our society into a pretzel of me-ism.”
3. Re-spinning the Crusades
Quote: ”The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. … What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values.” (South Carolina campaign stop, Feb. 22, 2011)Reaction: ”If you were worried there wouldn’t be a 2012 candidate touting the pro-Crusades platform, then today is your lucky day!” says Jillian Rayfield at Talking Points Memo. The religiously sanctioned European military campaigns were aimed at recapturing Jerusalem, and “along the way the Roman Catholic forces massacred thousands of Jews, among others.” I know the Crusades predated the U.S. by a few centuries, but how exactly does this military campaign reflect “core American values”?
4. Rejecting the very idea of “Palestinians”
Quote: ”All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians. There is no ‘Palestinian.’ This is Israeli land.” (Campaign stop in Iowa, Nov. 18, 2011)Reaction: ”The striking thing about his comments is that they represent an even more conservative position than that taken by the Israeli government,” says Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post. Israel’s anti-Palestinian position itself isn’t “accepted by much of the world, but it seems that the very least a potential U.S. president could do is accept the definitions used by the Israeli government.”
5. Reminding America that some view Mormonism as “a dangerous cult”
Quote: ”Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?” (Santorum’s Philadelphia Inquirer column, Dec. 20, 2007)Reaction: Santorum was responding to Mitt Romney’s famous speech reassuring evangelical Christians that he shares their values, and to be fair, “Santorum’s ultimate verdict on Romney was more or less positive,” says Dan Froomkin at The Huffington Post. But he draws plenty of “distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity that others have avoided lest they seem overly inflammatory.”
6. Dissing welfare programs that “make black people’s lives better”
Quote: ”I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” (Campaign stop in Iowa, Jan. 2, 2012)Reaction: ”This is the sort of subtle racism” that should, but won’t, harm Santorum among Republicans, says Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. Why did he single out black people when talking about cutting government aid?
7. Bringing race into Obama’s abortion views
Quote: ”The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘We’re going to decide who are people and who are not people.’” (CNS News interview, Jan. 19, 2011)Reaction: Equating fetuses to slaves got Santorum some pretty bad press,says David Weigel at Slate. But critics don’t “appreciate how mainstream Santorum’s point is among pro-life activists” who commonly “consider their work a continuation of other movements that protected human life and elevated the status of people whom the law doesn’t consider ‘human.’ In the 19th century, it was African-Americans; in the 21st century, it’s children in the womb.”
8. Equating gay marriage to loving your mother-in-law
Quote: ”Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?” (Santorum’s Philadelphia Inquirer column, May 22, 2008)Reaction: Did noted “homophobe” Santorum just admit to a “weird sexual relationship with his mother-in-law” and brother? says Michael J.W. Stickings at The Reaction. He may be atop the Republican heap, “but make no mistake about it, Santorum’s still a bigot and a moron.”
9. Comparing homosexuality to “man-on-dog” sex
Quote: ”If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. … That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.” (AP interview, April 7, 2003)
I could go on, but I ask you. Read this. Retweet it. Repost it. Spread the word. Research it yourself.
This lunatic needs to keep his personal decisions out of our public policy.
He is not running for President. He is running for Pope.
And let’s be clear: Guy who’s been out of work for a year and a half, or under employed for eight… Rick Santorum isn’t going to fix the economy, bring jobs back to America, or do anything to make your life better. He doesn’t care if your home is foreclosed, your business is shuttered, or you die in a box.
This is an unstable man who will, the day after he gets into office, do everything in his power to trigger the rapture. He will kill us all. Okay?
Stop this.
Now.
My favorite quote, from @Huffpo
“And there are still undecided Iowa voters, whose choices could causes unexpected results. Greg Holmes, a 45-year-old prison guard who lives in Marshalltown, attended events with Bachmann and Perry on Thursday. He said he is still undecided, although he thinks Romney, Bachmann and Perry are the most electable.”
“Until Tuesday he plans to read up on each candidate and see them when he can. He said he will make his choice at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, when the caucuses begin.”
In other words:
“Everybody’s playing patty cake with us until Wednesday morning, so I’m gonna milk it for all it’s worth. Now, which of you dimwits wants to buy me another corn dog?!?”
…well, one that isn’t accidental, at least.
Rick Santorum, languishing at 10% in Iowa, realizes… he’s looking for a few good men… who like men and a few good women… who like women… to ignore the fact that he hates them and has built his entire campaign on that. And now, he’s got a plan to get their vote.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorumexplained how he would win support from gay voters despite his long opposition to same-sex marriage Tuesday night on Fox News’ “On The Record” with Greta Van Susteren.
Van Susteren asked how he could get votes from “the gay citizens of Iowa” despite being endorsedTuesday by Bob Vander Plaats, the president and CEO of The Family Leader. The Christian conservative activist ran an ultimately successful electoral campaign to oust three judges on the Iowa Supreme Court after they voted to legalize same-sex marriage.
“Well, look, I have nothing against gay people. They have rights of every other citizen. But what they did in Iowa and what some are trying to do — not all gays — but some are trying to do is change the laws of this country with respect to what the definition of marriage is,” Santorum said. “We have a public policy disagreement. I know there are a lot of gays who are strong on national security and believe in lower taxes and getting this economy moving, and welcome them to join our campaign.”
You can see the whole video by going HERE and read the entire insanity of his plan by visiting Huffpo HERE…
But this is the funniest damn thing ever.
So not only is he a screaming homophobe, but he’s delusional at best and flat out stupid at worst. I hope this guy stays in through the bitter end, because I haven’t laughed this hard since he opened his mouth YESTERDAY.
Answering to the call of, well, basically nobody, Sarah Palin is hinting that it’s not too late for her to enter the race.
With Herman Cain gone, Newt in a free-fall, Romney so dull I can’t even construct a decent insult on his used-car salesman ass, Rick Perry a gay-hating punchline and Rick Santorum a gay-hating nobody, the GOP is running out of punchlines that middle America can get.
Soon, it may be people like Huntsman and Michele “I have facts!” Bachmann left and, lets be honest… the jokes on them will be obscure. They might be funny, but it’ll be the difference between jokes that everybody can even joy, and a jokes that Zach Galifianakis or Patton Oswald would craft that would have to be brilliant, but would probably fly right over a lot of heads.
And I don’t want to have the think that hard when I’m trying to craft zingers about idiot conservatives.
So yes, Sarah Palin. Yes to you in 2012. Hell, team up with Beck! Or Trump! I don’t care who, and I don’t even care who’s on top of the ticket. Just find a dance partner and lets get this comedy show started already.
Please don’t leave the punchlines to those Huntsman girls because let me tell you, they are NOT as funny as they think they are.
Here’s the story that brings hope to my comedy heart.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin rekindled speculation about her 2012 plans Monday, offering a teasing response to a question about whether she or anybody else might still get involved in the presidential race.
“It’s not too late for folks to jump in,” Palin said during an interview on the Fox Business Network, according to advance excerpts. “Who knows what will happen in the future.”
Palin may not be including herself in that list of “folks,” and it’s possible that she’s simply referring to other potential figures, such as real estate mogul Donald Trump, who have been irresolute about their presidential ambitions. Earlier this month, Trump removed himself as moderator of a Republican debate because he refused to rule out mounting a third-party run later in 2012 should the GOP primary produce a candidate he finds unacceptable.“After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for president of the United States,” said Palin in a statement on her decision.” As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.”
Earlier in the year, Palin appeared to shut the door on her White House aspirations, at least for this election cycle.
If Palin remains a sideline figure in the 2012 elections, her eventual endorsement, which she has said she intends to give, will no doubt be a coveted possession. On Sunday, the former vice presidential candidate said she wasn’t yet ready to decide who she would support. Real Clear Politics reported in November that her camp was considering backing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who recently experienced a tumble in Iowa polls. Palin has also spoken favorablyabout former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who has largely failed to register as a force in GOP primary surveys, even in Iowa, where he has spent the vast majority of his time attempting to appeal to the state’s social conservatives.
The comment could well recharge the energy of her persistent supporters, who just last monthlaunched an ad in Iowa urging Palin to jump in the race due to dissatisfaction with the current field. That sentiment has apparently lingered among the ranks of many conservatives, as Tea Party leaders recently told the Associated Press that they remained “disappointed” with their choices.
