• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Propertius on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    jmac on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    Beata on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on The Year of the Scapegoat: Fre…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on The Year of the Scapegoat: Fre…
    William on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    Propertius on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    William on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    Beata on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    jmac on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    Beata on Imagining a Fifteen-Minute Cha…
    Beata on The Year of the Scapegoat: Fre…
    Propertius on The Year of the Scapegoat: Fre…
    Propertius on The Year of the Scapegoat: Fre…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    February 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
  • Top Posts

Stupid Trolls

Sometimes you read a troll dropping that makes you wonder if the person could really be that clueless. I was over at Tennessee Guerilla Women where Egalia had a post about the Super Bowl Snickers commercial starring Betty White you see above. One of Egalia’s regular trolls named “Lance Thruster” posted this comment:

Betty White rocks!

Is TGW OK with her Sue Anne Nivens/Happy Homemaker charicature from the MTM Show (cuz you know she pretended to be a bit of a “strumpet”)?

Lance’s Crayola computer obviously doesn’t have spell check but what he really needs is an intelligence upgrade. Betty White’s character “Sue Ann Nivens” pretended to be the sweet “Happy Homemaker” but in reality she was a very different person, rude, sarcastic and sex-obsessed.

The role was groundbreaking because Betty White portrayed one of the first women on television that was not only openly sexual but sexually aggressive. The humorous aspect of the Sue Ann role was shock factor in that she was a middle-aged woman (Betty was 51 in 1973) who behaved very differently from the stereotypical “grandmother” role and from her well-established public persona. I have no idea what the real Betty White is like in private life but I bet she’s not two-dimensional.

White satirically fulfilled both of the two traditional roles for women under the patriarchy. Satire is often used to bring attention to social and/or political issues that our culture finds difficult to face directly. Most of the socially-conscious commentary in movies in television during the sixties and seventies appeared in comedies rather than drama.

It is ironic that the single and sexually active Sue Ann appeared in the Mary Tyler Moore show because just a few years earlier Mary and her television spouse Dick Van Dyke had to sleep in separate beds.

117 Responses

  1. Hello? Hello?

    Is this thing on?

    • i’m here … just out starting the morning thread …

    • and I like this thread. I always found Sue Ann to be one of the more complex characters ever developed on a sit com. She definitely took on the world her way. Everything I’ve ever read about Betty is that she’s great. She’s an activist for the Humane Society and she still gets some great roles. She was a great murdering secretary in a part played on Boston Legal who found out this guy was a serial killer who had gotten off because of good legal representation and she killed him to stop him from killing again. She always plays complex characters. It’s morons like that guy that don’t see them that way.

  2. Betty White is one funny actress. Sue Ann was a great character.

  3. Trolls tend to have trouble with irony, sarcasm, and satire.

  4. I’m here too. I was just dreaming about the 70s.

    • I hope it didn’t include disco, because then it would be a nightmare.

        • you just had to go there, didn’t you? I keep trying to avoid EVER seeing that …

          • What, are you kidding me? that’s one of the greatest dance sequences ever committed to film. Back in the day Travolta could give Michael Jackson a run for his money–and Jackson’s own brilliance was acknowledged by that Astaire dude himself, IIRC.

            So forget the polyester and the cheese, and just watch the man mooove, fer heaven’s sake.

        • The Bee Gees totally ruined my prom. No forgiveness here.

      • I actually never went to a disco. Wasn’t interested and didn’t have the extra money for it. But, I had friends who bought special Leisure Suits for their Disco Excursions.

        • I went to my first disco in 1968 when I was all of 13 in Madrid, Spain. go, figure.

        • I came out in the late 70s and was dismayed to find that the community’s music choice was disco. For some reason, I thought that Dykes (what Lesbians used to call ourselves back then before we got politically correct) would be naturals for rock (or at least folk rock or at very least, Chris Williamson’s music).

  5. My favorite Betty White role was the foul-mouthed old lady who raised the crocodile in Lake Placid:

    • she’s just having fun taking on those kinds of characters isn’t she?

    • Hilarious. “if I had a dick this is where I’d tell you to suck it”

      Sarah Silverman sorta vaguely reminds me of Betty White here. I could see Silverman turning into a foul mouthed granny one day.

      • I could see SS turning into a foul mouthed granny one day, too …. but not with a charm of a Betty White. Without it, Betty wouldn’t be Betty.

        Sarah Silverman lacks the charm and sweetness Betty White always had and has cultivated for decades. And she still has it today.
        I don’t care about Silverman – she leaves me competely cold. Is she funny? Some people seem to think so.

        Betty White is quite a bit more outspoken these days compared to the good old days BUT …. when you are at a certain age you might as well go for it….and Betty can get away with stuff folks like SS just can’t.

        When you are a celeb, a charming personality is everything.

    • She loves delivering lines that are so shocking they’re funny. Her Boston Legal character first showed up on the last season of The Practice. I’ll never forget the moment when she told a young woman attorney that her mouth looked like a drive-through window for oral sex. That was probably the rudest thing I’ve ever heard said on a TV program, and it was absolutely hilarious.

      I’m also reminded of the bit in The Proposal where she was groping Sandra Bullock through her dress remarking that her breasts had to be in there somwhere.

  6. Betty White is hilarious, but this was not my favorite BW character:

    • Bravo Betty!

      For decades she has spoken out against animal abuse and wildlife slaughtering Palin inflames me too —

      Gunning down wolves from airplaines among who knows what else? After all the effort was made to reintroduce wolves into the natural habitat?

      Killing magnificient animals just for bloodlust, bragging rights … most likely with a double-barreled rifle and always from a supersafe place. Like an airplane. Appalling.

      You tell her, Betty!!!
      Palin is a terrible human being.

  7. While Laura and Rob Petrie did have to sleep in separate beds, Laura’s pants (mostly capri) were a serious threat to the established order of the day. Women on TV were still vacuuming in pearls and heels, and many people were alarmed and outraged about Laura’s blow for independence. Mary Tyler Moore further pushed the envelope by being a single woman on her own on her show. Sue Ann Nivens was, as Myiq says, one of, if not the first, happily sexually independent women on television. Ironically, on her first show, Life With Elizabeth, she played a devilishly mischievous housewife, and was one of the producers. The Golden Girls’ Blanche Devereaux was written for her based on her Sue Ann character, and Rose for Rue based on her All In The Family/Maude work, but White wanted to stretch so she opted for Rose. Wikipedia says she was scared of the switch, which they say was suggested by the producers, but that’s not how I remember it.
    At any rate, White is delightfully spunky, fun, and warm in person, as were all the cast members of The Golden Girls, all of whom I have been fortunate enough to meet once upon a time.

    • lucky you! All of those women were trendsetters in their day! I so wanted to be Mary when I grew up … loved Rhoda too. And of course Chloris Leachmen is a legend in her own right. Between the Maude Caste and the Mary Tyler Moore Cast, those were some pioneering women! And then the Julia cast! That was another pioneering show for working mothers!

    • I believe they originally wanted Mary Richards to be a divorced woman but that was considered too daring!!

      • And they probably didn’t want anyone to think she divorced Dick van Dyke, either. 🙂

    • I can still hear, “Oh Raahhb” (Rob)

    • I think Donna Reed gets short shrift. Besides being a formidible woman in her own right, and hiring Ida Lupino to direct, even the show’s content was a far cry from June Clever. Donna had a hot husband who she actually fought with, her son was an Eddie Haskell type and she didn’t put up with him, and there was a landbreaking episode called “Just a Housewife” where she stood up for the dignity of the homemaker and against everybody for belittling that work and being condescending. I love MTM and even Dick van Dyke, but IMO Donna Stone was more proto feminist than Laura Petrie, and none of the “Where the Girls Are” genre of books ever gives her credit.

  8. OMG:

    There is a billboard along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., with a huge photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: “Miss Me Yet?”

    How can we miss him when he’s still in office?

    • Did he leave? I thought he was just standing out of sight.

    • Now they’re trying to find out if the board is the work of Republicans or Democrats.

    • That’s hilarious.
      I sort of do miss him, actually. While he was in office I could pretend that once a Dem president replaced him things would get better.

      • Actually the way he murdered the English language was at time funny. He was kind of a goof at times. There is nothing funny about O.

  9. Jeebus, it’s Monday and they’re STILL talking about Sarah’s hand-writing??

  10. Ha ha ha, the troll at TGW cracks me up. He’s become a parody of himself.

    I remember once he came out and said that winning the election was the important thing, not what policies would be enacted. Wish I’d saved a screen shot, it explained so much about his behavior.

    • So, this is what Obama does when he’s bored with his hard job….he comments on blogs.

    • Isn’t this the same troll who claims he didn’t vote for Obama because of his skin color? He’s always talking out of both sides of his cheeks.

      • Yeah. He also keeps calling the “HCR” bill from the Senate “Universal Health Care”. Wonder what color the sky is in his world.

        • more like Surreal Insurance Care brought to you by K-Street and Obama (SICKO) — insurance care being care for the insurance industry.

          • Tell me about it. I’m in the health industry (EMT, currently in Paramedic school) and the inability of O-bots to acknowledge that health insurance =/= health care drives me insane.

            On the other side, EMS tends to be very conservative and my coworkers and fellow students griping about having to pick up drunks and deal with people with non-emergency illnesses who didn’t go to the doctor, while simultaneously saying that UHC would be “a TERRIBLE blow for EMS!!!!” drives me spare too. Arrrrrgh.

  11. Newest criticism of Tebow ad: It glorifies violence against women:

    But NOW president Terry O’Neill doesn’t think so. She told the LA Times: “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it. That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”

    Just heard about this. The typical reaction is pointing to Betty White getting tackled and O’Neill not saying anything about that. What a mess. Too bad NOW brought attention to this boring ad in the first place.

    • I think FOTF wanted to provoke NOW, NARAL et al and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

      • Man, liberals suck at politics. :facepalm:

      • Seems like there was a good bit o’ “bait ‘n switch,” with the Focus on the Family folks deliberately releasing the objectionable subtext of the ultimately “benign” ad in advance to maximize the effect of whatever watered down ad they knew they’d only be allowed to air.

        They got their money’s worth, but what with all the subterfuge, what else was NOW, et al. to do? No matter what they said, or did, the sneaky side was going to spin it their way. It’s how they roll.

        Given all the collusion with CBS, who’s to say the network didn’t suggest the tackle after the Snickers ad was submitted?


        • And no matter what they did, everybody was going to yell don’t do that, do this! No, do that! No, do something else. If the test is not to do anything anyone’s going to complain about, they might as well get out the duct tape and go sit in the corner. FOTF isn’t some poor little organization run out of the cellar of a nice man who abhors publicity. If nobody bit, they would have done whatever they needed to make sure they got their money’s worth.

          • I always figure that if someone is trying to provoke me then the last thing I want to do is get provoked.

          • But there’s a difference between politicos and ideologues. They care about these issues, they know no one else will bring it up, and most importantly, they answer to their membership. Their dues paying membership. Some moron squaking at ESPN.com about why I haven’t used my unlimited power, resources, and control of society protesting the Betty White ad wouldn’t bother me if I were in charge. OTOH, 1000 emails from dues paying members, many of whom I know and respect, telling me it’s an outrage if I don’t respond, there are issues we care about here, we can’t let Dobson’s little games keep us from speaking out because our target isn’t KO or the NFL but some little girl out there who might pick up our magazine and hear a perspective she ain’t getting anywhere else, would be a different thing.

          • You make some really excellent points as always, Seriously, and I really want to agree with you. If NOW hadn’t proven to be nothing more than the political arm of the Obamacratic party in ’08, I *would* agree about reaching even just one young woman as opposed all the naysayers. NOW isn’t in the same position it was before the 2008 election cycle, though, and I think it’s hard to just move forward on advocacy as if they were.They’ve breached that trust, as far as caring about the issues goes, and they missed a key moment recently to rebuild some of that. O’Neill could have taken a strong stand before the House/Stupak mess passed. She could have sent a signal to women and girls that the bill passing with the amendment was totally unacceptable, that it would be tantamount to passing healthcare on the backs of women and was not a step forward at all. It may not have stopped the House bill or the Stupak amendment from passing, but it would have shown that the “organization for women” cared about the issue enough to put themselves on the line for it –enough to make young women and girls aware of what was going on with public policy and how their rights were being undermined. You never know what kind of an impact that would have had. Even if it was an honest mistake on Terry’s fault, it was a missed opportunity.

            The way NOW went about the Super bowl ad this time backfired on them from a PR standpoint –and I suspect it turned away more Obamagirls instead of breaking through their postfeminist coma.

            If the political situation keeps going the way it has been, that little girl who reads their magazine-when she turns 18 and onward, will be told by the Democrats and NOW, you must vote for the D, Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS, yarda yarda. The ripple effects of that are huge, and aren’t just about politics–if a woman’s right to privacy and autonomy wasn’t up for debate in public policy, I doubt FOTF would be wasting money on that ad.

            NOW can multitask and do advocacy on multiple fronts all they want–it’s not that women’s organizations can’t walk and chew at the same time– but they also need to prioritize. I think for them to be effective on all those other fronts, it would help them to first start shattering some of that image they created for themselves as being “for women, only as needed, only for a certain party, even when that party isn’t for women.” They can’t just jump back to the place they were before the election advocacy-wise, imho.

          • NOW’s real mistake was that they attempted to censor the viewpoint of someone they disagreed with.

            Freedom of speech applies to every one.

            (Because the government was not involved this was not a 1st amendment issue but the principle remains)

          • NOW’s attempt to block the ad was a mistake but it’s also a symptom of the larger problem. The reason they’ve lost credibility is because of a failure to put the issues before the politics. Tebow’s mom had the right to make the choice she did, even if NOW doesn’t agree with it. There is no threat to choice in that ad. The threat is the words “focus on the family” imho.

          • I agree, Wonk. The hysterical overreaction to the ad was a huge mistake, and now that they’ve been shown to be fools, they are backpedaling and trying to find the joke tackle “violent” just for the sake of finding SOMETHING to object to.

            The correct response would be to affirm that any women is free to choose to keep her baby, and there is nothing wrong with groups celebrating that, or even encouraging women to do so and offering tangible support so she can, so long as the choice is still hers..

            The issue is the LAW, period. But instead of focusing on that, it seems the pro-choice groups keep veering off into trying to argue that anyone who views a fetus as a life at any point is the enemy, hates women, and needs to be made to shut up entirely.

            The point wasn’t the ad, which was fine. The point was the long-held FOTF position of making abortion ILLEGAL. We need to STOP hyperventilating over any and all “advocating for life” (which most of the public is puzzled that we would object to), and get back to reminding people that CRIMINALIZING abortion would be disastrous.

          • The “choice” crowd was deliberately and skillfully baited and placed in a no-win, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t position” by people who meticulously planned to do exactly that. A single press release describing a pro-life ad being unprecedentedly allowed to air during the biggest advertising venue was all it took to put NOW et. al., effectively over a barrel. It seems a little disingenuous to me to blame them for being outplayed in a game they were forced into by provocation from the blindside. Had they not responded, CBS and FotF go with the hardest-hitting ad they think they can get away with. When they did respond, the network and its client go with the softest sell available, with FotF’s primary goal at that point being to mock and ridicule their way into maximizing their expenditure.

            The ad was never the focus of FotF, it was the ginned up outrage they were after. But, had NOW and Co. let it go without comment, FotF would have called it a “choice” ad that even “the left” agreed with, and would have had an even bigger field day with that.

          • Guessing 99% of the people who watched the ad took nothing away from it politically one way or other. I also doubt the few million who became aware of the controversy in the lead up to the game were swayed from their views one way or other. If NOW played even a small role in keeping the ads from turning into a bigger campaign, then good for them. In the end, NOW got some renewed national attention from the kerfuffel, and Focus on the Family got some weak name branding for their $6-8 million. Terry O’Neill played it just fine in my opinion.

        • You are incredibly insightful.

          • WMCB said“The issue is the LAW, period”

            Yes, that is the point. 19 years ago a young woman who worked for me came to me and said her doc told her she had a growth on her ovary – she was 3 1/2 months pregnant – he suggested she abort. She and her husband really wanted that baby.

            She asked me what she should do – I, of course, told her I couldn’t tell her what to do, it was a decision she ultimately had to make, that she would know.

            Her doctor kept telling her that she could die and that she had to make a decision ‘soon’

            She too opted to have that baby who is now a med student and a wonderfully delightful young woman.

            When she went off to college her mom said – “you know all these rules really get in the way. I just did what you said – I followed my heart – I’m really glad I did.

            3W I agree. NOW is so mixed up.

  12. I like Betty White. The hard tackling the woman thing was probably made popular by the Michelob touch football ads in recent Super Bowls. Snickers and even Tebow must have found that funny. Ad agencies have been insufferable lately. They are chock full of arrogant Obots mouthing off on the web and elsewhere about misguided dumb hicks in middle America. Of course, they make their living pitching products to their clients’ customers who happen to be the same people they diss so readily and ignorantly. Being an Obot doesn’t necessarily make you a prick or hypocrite, but it’s a head start.

    • Actually, I turned to my husband during the game and said “how come so many of these commercials make the guys look like real jerks?”

  13. Lord Kos on the 2008 primariez: “The only crowd that had any reason to gripe was the Hillary crowd.” Haw.

    • i find that unacceptable 😉

    • He said that? WHY?

      Wonder what forced him to actually speak the truth now? I am surprised cause I had no idea he knew how to do so.

      And why do it?
      After all the hard work he put in his website all those years maligning Hillary Clinton (and Bill Clinton) and trashing them like no tomorrow … long before the primaries.

      I will never forget how after the Las Vegas debate – where things looked pretty good for Hillary and not so good for O, – kos lectured his folk that all Hillary followers were no Democrats. that pretty much did it for me. But kos got lots of sugar for it from his kosborgs. It is certainly worth checking the archives.

      Shortly after that, I stopped visiting that site.

      btw. remember when Hillary supporter Alegre wrote that she would boycott dk because of the biased posts and the nasty Hillary bashing, – and kos and his kosborgs laughed their heads off and posted stuff a la “don’t let the door hit you …… etc?.”

      So it took just about two years to speak the truth? WHY bother, King Kos?

      • He misses his Clinton Panties:

        • “He misses his Clinton Panties.”

          Of course, thats it, myiq2xu! LOL

          kos’ truthtalking reminds me of the Hitler clip on You Tube. He regrets. Who knows, kos may do same 😉

          \\Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat” (from the movie “The Downfall’) Hilarious!!!

          Bruno Ganz is amazing in that role. One of my fav. actors.
          He also played the Law professor in The Reader.

  14. Appropos of still being pissed about the malevolent douchebaggery at the Choice Banning Station, I’m exercising mine and choosing not to watch any of their broadcasts for a year.

    As posted elsewhere, I recommended that anyone who cares about preserving the inviolable right to make one’s own decisions relating to medical treatments, moral/religious ordering, and partnering should also consider not watching CBS for a year.

    The thing is, any person already has CHOICES in all of the above. I’m talking about respecting that person’s DECISIONS about those choices.

    So that’s what I’ve decided, because I’m The Decider in my own life.

    Maybe the Hate-Nanny Network will alter their frankly illegal use of the public airwaves by next Stuper Bowl.

    In closing, Hi Lambert! 🙂

  15. I thought the issue with the Tebow ad was that CBS has a policy of not accepting political ads. They turned down the gay dating service ad. I didn’t think it was all about the ad but also the fact that CBS waived a policy that they normally hold for others.

    Being in advertising, I have a really hard time with the idea that ads are freedom of speech. They are not speech. They are well-crafted, intentional mind games. That’s why the tobacco companies had their “freedom of speech” taken away from them.

    • yup, all so true. But even here there are men and women (unfortunately) who think NOW etc… should just shut up because they are being over zealous or something.

      • Strawman much?

        I agree with NOW’s goals, I disagree with their strategy in this particular case.

        • What would you have had women’s groups do, Myiq? And what would have been the foreseeable consequences as you see them?

          • I would have waited until after the ads actually aired and then responded to them.

          • Monday morning quarterbacking by advocating Monday morning quarterbacking?

            Personally I can imagine FotF making considerable hay out of a lack of response from women; but, we’ll never know will we? Besides, as far as I’m concerned, breaking precedent the way CBS did, regardless of how wild or tame the actual ad was, was worthy of an immediate outraged response.

            We disagree.

          • How did NOW even know that FOTF intended to air an ad in the first place? How did they know what was originally going to be in the ad?

            FOTF told them, that’s how. FOTF wanted to provoke a reaction to attract attention. They succeeded.

            If NOW had succeeded in blocking them from airing an ad, FOTF would get to play the victim. Censorship looks bad – it looks like you’re afraid of what the other side has to say.

            NOW should have conceded the right of FOTF to run the ad and had a measured and appropriate response ready afterward.

            “Ms. Tebow made a choice and we support the right of every woman to be free to make her own choices.”

            Without all the hoopla, how many people would have even noticed the ad anyway?

          • BTW – My opinion was formed beforehand, not on Monday morning.

        • Please factor into your criticism the fact that NOW was also denied forehand access to the inside knowledge that CBS granted to FOF.

          That’s what CBS did by essentially coproducing the FOF while simultaneously rejecting NOW out of hand for being “political” — and without even seeing their ad.

          I don’t believe that the last minute inclusion of a sack in the Tebow ad that ran was incidental.

          NOW wasn’t so much cunningly baited and out-thought but denied equal access, muffled and then blind-sided.

      • I don’t understand the smug, post-hoc slamming of NOW or other booby-PACs for this “over-reaction” to (a) CBS’s grossly political abuse of the public airwaves to ass-pat a hate-group and (b) FOF’s 11th hour “Hail Mary” bait and switch.

        Is the Monday Morning condemnation of booby-PACs based on their “failure” to be clairvoyant and foresee that FOF would run a totally different ad, or simply a wish that they be passive and silent all the time, evah?

      • instead of shutting up or shutting someone else up, NOW could have responded and said choice wins out again–Tebow’s mom exercised her right to choose instead of someone else making that choice for her, and that’s what important–that she had the right to make that choice.

        • what is* important

        • Yes, Wonk and they would have made a really good point that many would have bought into

        • NOW’s Tebow ad statement:

          Focus on the Family has an aggressively anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-woman agenda. This ad reportedly promotes the decision of one woman to go against her doctor’s advice to terminate an at-risk pregnancy. While NOW would never disparage any woman’s reproductive choice, we believe that all women should be free to make the decision that is right for them. We also believe that this ad could potentially put women’s health and lives at risk by promoting ideology over medicine.

          • I’ve read NOW’s statement and disagree–I think this is a bad strategy. There was nothing that Tebow’s mom said in that ad that was a threat to choice or women’s health. I am all for a broader discussion about one woman-and-her-child’s experience not being automatically translatable to anyone else’s experience–and that being why choice is so important. Every woman has to make the choice that she can live with. Just like Tebow’s mom had to make the choice she could live with.

          • FotF is the threat as I interpret NOW’s statement. And, the ad seems to have evolved into its final “benign” state as result of NOW’s lobbying. I just don’t see anything objectionable about NOW’s response, and suspect that no matter what they said or did, the right wing entities that went ballistic over it would have gone ballistic anyway.

          • …and for the record, I do think it’s pretty irresponsible to even suggest that it’s okay to disregard your doctor’s advice because everything will surely turn out super duper hunky dory if only you truly, truly believe.

        • But the position wasn’t to shut up the Tebows, but in CBS’s double standards for shepherding in that particular one — placed on the web as news — (and other blatantly political) ads as acceptable, but denying similar access to ads from other groups as “too political”.

          Also, CBS assisted in creating the ad, which was also inappropriate, and an abuse of the network’s use of the public airwaves.

        • Incidentally, Planned Parenthood produced just such an ad (available on YouTube and elsewhere for viewing) with exactly that approach and which, under CBS’s shifting goalposts, would also not be “acceptable”.

    • Tobacco companies were selling a product, the gay dating service was selling a for-profit service, and FOTF was selling a political idea. SCOTUS has made a distinction between commercial and political speech.

      • Obviously, I disagree with SCOTUS. As I said, being in the advertising industry I know full well it’s not speech. Mind you, I was the lone voice of dissent when the company cheetos were positively orgasmic over Obama’s amazing branding campaign. Since when is selling the presidency as if it were soda pop something to applaud?

        • So you believe that freedom of speech only applies to ideas you agree with?

          • “America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

          • No. That’s not what I said at all.

            I said that I believe there is a BIG difference between speech/ideas and advertising. Obama’s branding campaign didn’t sell political ideas. Branding campaigns sell moods and emotions. They don’t aim for the brain; they aim much lower.

          • You know, I think that’s part of the problem with advancing a liberal agenda. We liberals think too much and we’re very focused on ideas, concepts and policy. But ideas and policy don’t sell.

          • I agree, myiq. If you are not winning the argument, then the solution is to make a better argument, not shut up everyone else. Are they afraid deep down that they can’t win the argument? I’m not, if they make it correctly.

            And quite frankly, some pro-choice groups have done a good job marginalizing and walling themselves off from LOTS of women by coming across exactly as NOW did here: as just as judgmental of those choosing to carry (and those who support them) as the most extreme fundies are of those choosing to terminate. It’s a war of perceptions.

            It’s kind of hard to battle the ridiculous meme that pro-choice people are rabidly pro-abortion and hate motherhood, when the first response to the Tebows’ touching story across liberal and feminist blogs was to spit on it with as much venom as possible. See also: Sarah Palin and Trig.

            People forget that your “audience” for these reactions isn’t the hard-liners on either side. It’s the mass of people in the middle who don’t know Jack Shit about James Dobson. And the average person does not see that your ire is not at the Tebows, but at an agenda behind FOTF. All theysee is liberals being nasty to a mom and her much-loved son. It comes across as “fuck you, you should have aborted him” It’s no wonder the “culture of death” tag sticks, when the public sees us behaving like that.

            NOW and other groups need to get off their high horses and get with the program, which is defending CHOICE for women, and that can include celebrating motherhood, or they are going to become even more irrelevant than they now are.

          • If we’re referring to the recent Scotus decision, I think CBS would have run the ad regardless of that decision (which relates more to elections), and they were also not constrained by any legal precedent or FCC rules. This was a paid ad, not a public service announcement, and CBS’s decision to allow it to run was purely revenue driven. The fact that the final ad itself was relatively tame was also production managed for the market by CBS imo, not gamemanship by Focus on Family. NOW leaned on CBS enough to make a difference. CBS cannot afford to alienate any large viewer blocs. NOW could have raised the ante by using the B word Boycott, but they didn’t have to.

          • 3W,

            If the decision was revenue driven, why did CBS turn down other ads with a more liberal focus? I guess we really do need the fairness doctrine back.

            Supposedly the people own the airwaves.

          • BB, if that was in past years CBS standards and practices probably had more stringent guidelines to conform in part with rules in their news and legal divisions. But in this market environment, they have lowered their standards so to speak. What flies or doesn’t fly may have more to do with weighing revenue potential against risk of audience loss.

    • I thought that was the issue too. They made an exception for FOF. In doing so, they ended up giving gravitas to a very creepy organization. Isn’t FOF the group whose leader promotes hitting children to discipline them?

  16. I love Betty White. The end.

    New thread up!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: