Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,826 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 27, 2015 18:17:46 GMT -5
She brought them in. What's the diff? they have no problem using their own lives and personal experience. No different. Big difference though not surprised you don't know it. The Obamas never had their daughters visually and verbally particpate in election campaign videos. Cruz did. Cruz deserved to be roasted for dragging his kids into it. The cartoon was inappropriate of Cruz but he would and should have been fair game in written articles for putting his kids in the campaign video. |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782 
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 27, 2015 18:29:33 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,826
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 27, 2015 18:30:32 GMT -5
Depicting the girls as monkeys is too much. I agree that minor children should be off limits for any politician's family. Politician's themselves are almost in a no win when it comes to their kids. If the spouse and family isn't visible people come up with weird theories as to why, when they are they become a tool to attack the politician and often end up as collateral damage in the process. Nothing wrong with a campaign commercial with the candidate standing/sitting with his family. Nothing really wrong with the candidate's spouse/partner touting the qualities of the candidate. It's when you put your children in the commercial and the child(ren) mock the candidate's potential rival for office that it steps over the line of good judgment. It invites valid criticism of the candidate and the commercial. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,826
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 27, 2015 18:33:56 GMT -5
Nice try but a president mention his children in a speech is not the same as a candidate having his children verbally participate in a campaign ad. Again, yes or no: Did Obama have his daughters verbally participate in a campaign commercial. |
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Dec 27, 2015 18:35:30 GMT -5
He used his kids in his ads- not just being present but making political statements- fair game- he is the one that should be embarassed. Oh brother. Obama and Michelle never used their kids as political fodder? Uh huh. I've seen the Obama family photographed waving to people: like every other political family. I've NEVER seen a TV add with the Obama daughters verbally attacking their father's opponent. Did you even see the ad that started all this? (I don't endorse the cartoon, but it's been a fund raising gift to Cruz) |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 19:09:25 GMT -5
Anyone have a link to the commercial?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 19:12:39 GMT -5
OMG! That is a serious political ad!  That's bizarre! |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 27, 2015 19:19:52 GMT -5
OMG! That is a serious political ad! That's bizarre! So what do you think, is he using his kids just like an organ grinder uses a dancing monkey? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 19:27:28 GMT -5
billisonboard that whole commercial is bizarre. The amount of disrespect it shows to other candidates and the whole process amazes me. That said, Chelsea Clinton has done campaign speeches for her parents, I saw the Obama girls interviewed and they have said how wonderful their parents are...I stand by the fact that the spouse and kids are always present. Pretty much everyone in the process is behaving like a trained monkey.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 19:37:52 GMT -5
The way I see it is: Kids are (or at least should be) "off limits" until the candidate puts them "in play". Once they are "in play" though... they are fair game.
Putting them in an ad is putting them "in play". Answering a question such as "Do you have any children?" with "Yes. That's all you need to know about them." isn't.
Cruz put his daughters "in play". His choice. And while I think the "trained monkey" thing is a bit insulting... it's really basically how he used them in the ad. He "ground his organ" (made his political point) while his girls were there to be seen (as trained monkeys are there to be seen).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 27, 2015 19:45:10 GMT -5
The way I see it is: Kids are (or at least should be) "off limits" until the candidate puts them "in play". Once they are "in play" though... they are fair game. Putting them in an ad is putting them "in play". Answering a question such as "Do you have any children?" with "Yes. That's all you need to know about them." isn't. Cruz put his daughters "in play". His choice. And while I think the "trained monkey" thing is a bit insulting... it's really basically how he used them in the ad. He "ground his organ" (made his political point) while his girls were there to be seen (as trained monkeys are there to be seen). Not just seen but actually making a political statement. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 19:51:11 GMT -5
Criticize him for that, leave the girls alone. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 27, 2015 19:52:41 GMT -5
Not just seen but actually making a political statement. Criticize him for that, leave the girls alone. That was what the cartoon did. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 19:53:55 GMT -5
Criticize him for that, leave the girls alone. That was what the cartoon did. It depicted the girls as monkeys, that was unfair to them. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 27, 2015 19:54:05 GMT -5
Exactly. Cruz is a classless, hypocritical, lying POS. He exploited his children and is now using them again for fundraising.
Did Chelsea Clinton do campaign speeches for her parents as an adult or when she was nine? And when have the Obama girls ever attacked political rivals or opposing legislation? |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2015 20:16:34 GMT -5
I thought the ad was worth a chuckle and a groan.
The format reminds me of an SNL skit.
Canadian politicians play bit parts in CBC lampoons ("Royal Canadian Air Farce", "This Hour has 22 Minutes", etc.) quite frequently. They use it to show they have a sense of humour.
Having said this, I don't mind the editorial cartoon either. It's uninspired, but so are most political cartoons.
Both sides need to lighten up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 20:32:17 GMT -5
The way I see it is: Kids are (or at least should be) "off limits" until the candidate puts them "in play". Once they are "in play" though... they are fair game. Putting them in an ad is putting them "in play". Answering a question such as "Do you have any children?" with "Yes. That's all you need to know about them." isn't. Cruz put his daughters "in play". His choice. And while I think the "trained monkey" thing is a bit insulting... it's really basically how he used them in the ad. He "ground his organ" (made his political point) while his girls were there to be seen (as trained monkeys are there to be seen). Not just seen but actually making a political statement. Exactly. Wait... are we agreeing on something political? I think I need to check the thermostat in hell... |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 20:33:52 GMT -5
Exactly. Cruz is a classless, hypocritical, lying POS. He exploited his children and is now using them again for fundraising. So.... he's a politician? |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 27, 2015 20:41:21 GMT -5
No. Not all are classless. Not all are hypocritical. Not all are a lying POS. He just manages to hit the trifecta.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 20:52:44 GMT -5
No. Not all are classless. Not all are hypocritical. Not all are a lying POS. He just manages to hit the trifecta. My apologies... I was imprecise. He's the perfect example of a politician (as you said, he hit the trifecta). |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 28, 2015 0:01:08 GMT -5
That was what the cartoon did. It depicted the girls as monkeys, that was unfair to them. I disagree. It was a perfectly fair assessment of what they were. They need to not allow their father to use them if they don't want to be part of the political discourse. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2015 9:23:46 GMT -5
They need to not allow their father to use them if they don't want to be part of the political discourse.  Sen. Cruz: Hey, sweetheart. Do you want to help daddy make a Christmas ad and be on TV? Girl: Wow! On TV!? Sen. Cruz: That's right! Girl: Will you buy me a Barbie doll? Sen. Cruz: Anything for my little girl. Girl: OK, daddy!  billisonboard: Ha! You see! They deserve everything they get! They need to not allow their father to use them if they don't want to be part of the political discourse. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 28, 2015 9:35:49 GMT -5
They need to not allow their father to use them if they don't want to be part of the political discourse. Sen. Cruz: Hey, sweetheart. Do you want to help daddy make a Christmas ad and be on TV? Girl: Wow! On TV!? Sen. Cruz: That's right! Girl: Will you buy me a Barbie doll? Sen. Cruz: Anything for my little girl. Girl: OK, daddy! billisonboard: Ha! You see! They deserve everything they get! They need to not allow their father to use them if they don't want to be part of the political discourse. I hope that Cruz properly reported the purchase of the Barbie doll as a campaign expense. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2015 12:16:20 GMT -5
Sen. Cruz: Hey, sweetheart. Do you want to help daddy make a Christmas ad and be on TV? Girl: Wow! On TV!? Sen. Cruz: That's right! Girl: Will you buy me a Barbie doll? Sen. Cruz: Anything for my little girl. Girl: OK, daddy! billisonboard: Ha! You see! They deserve everything they get! They need to not allow their father to use them if they don't want to be part of the political discourse. I hope that Cruz properly reported the purchase of the Barbie doll as a campaign expense. I happen to agree with you that the political cartoon isn't over the line, but "they need to not allow their father to use them" is a terrible argument. What we're witnessing here is a variant of the perennially popular "no hitting back" political gambit where some sympathetic figure, be it Michael J. Fox shaking like an epileptic, Sen. Gabrielle Giffords coming out of surgery, or young Sen. John McCain giving the camera a thumbs-up, is trotted out to make a political statement in such a way that attacking the statement without also attacking its representative becomes exceptionally difficult. Those running the gambit need only wait until an opponent takes the bait, whereupon they frame the conflict as "love" versus "hate", victim versus tyrant, and waste no time expressing how their hearts bleed for the victim. People do it on our own board in the form of "heartfelt" personal/close-to-home testimonials that have no business on a public message board, and I deeply resent it. The strategy is Luciferian. You take a little bit of evil--a little lie, a little unfair dig at your political opponents, a little compromising of ethics--and package it up in a big, beautiful package that embodies innocence and goodness. Maybe a well-loved celebrity, or a loving family reading books at Christmas, or the hero of the high school football team. You serve it up in such a way that those who embrace the goodness also embrace the evil, and those who reject the evil wind up in opposition to the goodness. Should Sen. Cruz's daughters have to endure being depicted as monkeys? In a perfect world, no. But in a perfect world, politicians wouldn't parade out unassailable icons in order to score points or prostitute evil, and if it takes editorial cartoonists, comedians, and radio pundits making people's hearts bleed to prevent that from happening, I consider it the lesser of two evils. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 28, 2015 12:43:46 GMT -5
I hope that Cruz properly reported the purchase of the Barbie doll as a campaign expense. I happen to agree with you that the political cartoon isn't over the line, but "they need to not allow their father to use them" is a terrible argument. ... Should Sen. Cruz's daughters have to endure being depicted as monkeys? ... I would say the reason it is a "terrible argument" is the same reason your question isn't valid. As very young children they are totally under parental control. This applies to what they do, say, and are exposed to. They could be easily shielded from political discussions unless their parents choose to involve them. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2015 13:04:57 GMT -5
I happen to agree with you that the political cartoon isn't over the line, but "they need to not allow their father to use them" is a terrible argument. ... Should Sen. Cruz's daughters have to endure being depicted as monkeys? ... I would say the reason it is a "terrible argument" is the same reason your question isn't valid. As very young children they are totally under parental control. This applies to what they do, say, and are exposed to. They could be easily shielded from political discussions unless their parents choose to involve them. I don't understand your point here. I agree with you that the girls are fully under their parents' sway, which is why "they need to not allow their father to use them" is a poor argument. Unfortunately for them, the ones who make decisions on their behalf--Mom and Dad--decided to involve them in a political campaign. This involvement was a type of the "no hitting back" gambit I described. Regardless of who or what happens to be the icon of goodness and innocence in such a gambit--in this case two little girls--the icon is fair game for cartoonists, pundits, etc. This applies even though it was Sen. Cruz' decision rather than his daughters' decision to have them involved in his campaign. In fairness to Sen. Cruz, his daughters are so peripheral to the ad that I doubt he expected they'd be targets. In fairness to the editorial cartoonist, I doubt the intended message was "Cruz' daughters are monkeys" as much as it was "Cruz is using his daughters like monkeys". |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 28, 2015 13:17:18 GMT -5
I would say the reason it is a "terrible argument" is the same reason your question isn't valid. As very young children they are totally under parental control. This applies to what they do, say, and are exposed to. They could be easily shielded from political discussions unless their parents choose to involve them. I don't understand your point here. ... You state that the girls have to "endure" something. If they are not made aware that they were pictured in a political cartoon, they would not have to "endure" anything - ignorance is bliss. At their age (5 and 7), how would they gain awareness of the political cartoon? |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2015 14:20:01 GMT -5
I don't understand your point here. ... You state that the girls have to "endure" something. If they are not made aware that they were pictured in a political cartoon, they would not have to "endure" anything - ignorance is bliss. At their age (5 and 7), how would they gain awareness of the political cartoon? They wouldn't. But, hypothetically supposing that I considered the cartoon inappropriate or libelous, it wouldn't matter to me whether or not the girls ultimately became aware of it. Over the line is over the line. If your thinking isn't the same, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning. "Endure" is admittedly a poor choice of word. Consider the question to be "Should Sen. Cruz's daughters be subject to the disservice of being depicted as monkeys?" |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 28, 2015 16:52:06 GMT -5
You state that the girls have to "endure" something. If they are not made aware that they were pictured in a political cartoon, they would not have to "endure" anything - ignorance is bliss. At their age (5 and 7), how would they gain awareness of the political cartoon? They wouldn't. But, hypothetically supposing that I considered the cartoon inappropriate or libelous, it wouldn't matter to me whether or not the girls ultimately became aware of it. Over the line is over the line. If your thinking isn't the same, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning. "Endure" is admittedly a poor choice of word. Consider the question to be "Should Sen. Cruz's daughters be subject to the disservice of being depicted as monkeys?" Politicians have their kids with them in political situations. No problem. Sometimes they have their kids say, "You should vote for my Daddy because he is the greatest." Yeah, whatever. Ted Cruz crossed the line when he had his 7 year old daughter make a political statement attacking another candidate in his ad. The cartoon was an appropriate response (in the world of political cartoons) to his actions. It is up to him to deal with the consequences his choice brought upon his daughters. "Daddy, why did they picture me as a monkey?" "Because I used you like an organ grinder uses a monkey dear. It is just a metaphor for my actions." Or he can lie to her of course. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2015 17:36:38 GMT -5
They wouldn't. But, hypothetically supposing that I considered the cartoon inappropriate or libelous, it wouldn't matter to me whether or not the girls ultimately became aware of it. Over the line is over the line. If your thinking isn't the same, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning. "Endure" is admittedly a poor choice of word. Consider the question to be "Should Sen. Cruz's daughters be subject to the disservice of being depicted as monkeys?" Politicians have their kids with them in political situations. No problem. Sometimes they have their kids say, "You should vote for my Daddy because he is the greatest." Yeah, whatever. Ted Cruz crossed the line when he had his 7 year old daughter make a political statement attacking another candidate in his ad. The cartoon was an appropriate response (in the world of political cartoons) to his actions. It is up to him to deal with the consequences his choice brought upon his daughters. "Daddy, why did they picture me as a monkey?" "Because I used you like an organ grinder uses a monkey dear. It is just a metaphor for my actions." Or he can lie to her of course. Well...  traditionally it was the monkey's duty to run around collecting the money for the organist, hence if this is all good and appropriate, it would surely also be appropriate to depict Ms. Chelsea Clinton, who (I believe) sits on the board of her parents' charitable foundation, as an organ grinder's monkey. Yet I can still understand why the Clintons and their supporters might consider the metaphor less than appropriate. I also doubt that Bill would console Chelsea with "It's just because I used you like an organ grinder uses a monkey, dear. It is just a metaphor for my actions." We agree that if parents bring their children into the political sphere makes the children fair game for such attacks. Let's stick with that. |
|
