billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398 
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 28, 2015 17:54:18 GMT -5
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. The monkey collecting items for the organ grinder does so because they have been trained to mindlessly do so. Chelsea Clinton is an adult who (hopefully) has a full understanding of what she is doing. Would you argue that the 7 year old had a full understanding of the issue with emails and the server or was she just mouthing words that someone gave her? |
|
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 18:06:16 GMT -5
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. The monkey collecting items for the organ grinder does so because they have been trained to mindlessly do so. Chelsea Clinton is an adult who (hopefully) has a full understanding of what she is doing. Would you argue that the 7 year old had a full understanding of the issue with emails and the server or was she just mouthing words that someone gave her? I would say she's just reading her lines. But that doesn't make the analogy any more apt. It's a dumb cartoon. A better cartoonist would have parodied the ad itself. Maybe depicted Sen. Cruz reading from a pile of books with titles depicting his own scandals and dirty laundry, and his kids' eyes as wide as saucers. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 18:41:32 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. Which Senator Cruz chose to do... |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,398
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 28, 2015 19:22:18 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. Which Senator Cruz chose to do... We do know that he had one daughter deliver an attack on another candidate but I am not sure he did more than just tell her to say those words in that order. Do you know that he had any discussion with them on political issues in general or about the political cartoon in particular? That is the reason for my comment. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 23:37:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 20:32:35 GMT -5
Which Senator Cruz chose to do... . Do you know that he had any discussion with them on political issues in general or about the political cartoon in particular? That is the reason for my comment. That's even worse for his argument because that's basically akin to him using her the same way an organ grinder uses his monkey. But my point was: Cruz put the kids out there. Just like an organ grinder puts out his monkeys. You (general) don't get to cry "foul" when you are the one the puts something/someone "in play" in the first place. |
|
