Republican Congressman to CNN Anchor: 'Carol, You're Beautiful But You Have to Be Honest as Well'

By Dustin Rowles | Videos | October 3, 2013 | Comments ()


Congratulations GOP Representative Todd Rotika (R-IN) for your condescending, patronizing remark to CNN anchor, Carol Costello, who had the audacity to actually to suggest to the Congressman that the government shutdown — and a failure to raise the debt ceiling — might actually be financially worse for the country than the Affordable Care Act. After Costello got nowhere with her argument, Rotika successfully completes the transformation from petulant to sexist.

“You’re part of the problem, the media is part of the problem,” Rokita said.

“Come on, that’s so easy. That’s so easy,” Costello protested.

“Carol, you’re beautiful but you have to be honest as well,” Rokita said.

width="550" height="350" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" style="visibility: visible;">

allowNetworking="all" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent"

(Source: TPM)

Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web

Every New Beginning Comes From Some Other Beginning's End: 'Breaking Bad' Gets A Spanish Remake. | Books, Rebellion, and 'The Hunt for Red October'

Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned

  • Maddy

    Yuck. This is the equivalent of 'don't worry your pretty little head about it, the men are talking'. FFS

  • e jerry powell

    For a second there I thought we were supposed to be maligning Ann Coulter's character and was going to remind everyone to get back to it, but then I realized that that was THE OTHER POST.

    I have to get my liberal progressive train of thought back on the proper track.

    As you were.

  • **I AM** NotTheOne

    It's her own fault for being attractive.

  • manting

    Huh, I wonder which party voted against the violence against women act and for forced vaginal ultrasounds, without a hint of irony I might add.

  • abell

    Is this any better? Harry Reid telling a woman reporter "to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless." Basically saying, you're smarter than that.


    Make no mistake, I'm not supporting that idiot up there, but, I'm pretty sure it's Washington with the sexism problem, not just the Republicans.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Thing is, he's right. The question was disingenuous and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what the fundamental issues are. It's a glib, blithely opportunistic question designed to incite outrage, even though it completely avoids any of the larger, more critically important issues. In short, she is smarter than that, and she's asking lazy questions.

    Look, simply speaking bluntly to a reporter because you're frustrated isn't sexism. Talking about her looks in an insulting and condescending manner (as Rotika did) is deeply sexist, and frankly the fact that you can't tell the difference is rather disconcerting.

  • abell

    Really. Your position is that since you agree with Harry Reid, it's not sexist, and that condescension is okay as long as you don't bring up her body? That's disconcerting.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    I totally think there are times when it's appropriate to be condescending. There are times when it's appropriate to shame someone, and that's a useful way to do so.

  • foolsage

    I strongly agree. Sometimes people say or do stupid things, and sometimes a bit of condescension can help them become aware how foolish they're being.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Whether or not I agree with Reid is irrelevant. It's not about bringing up her body, it's about the fact that her gender - in any way, shape, or form - plays no part in that interaction. I'm actually quite baffled that you're convinced that there's sexism afoot.

    Was he abrupt and condescending? Absolutely. But you do understand that a man can be those things - towards a woman - and have it NOT be sexist, right?

    Wait, do you even know what sexism is? I'm not positive that you do.

  • abell

    I'm going to pick this thread so we're not hopping back and forth.

    Now please define sexism in such a way that you can accuse the entire Republican Party of if, but, I can't accuse Harry Reid of it in this situation.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Sure, what the hell. It's a slow day.

    When a party systematically votes to revoke, revise, or marginalize women's rights, that's sexism. When they wish to remove her right to choose, when large numbers of them routinely vote for things like mandatory ultrasounds, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory counseling, medically unnecessary and psychologically damaging procedures have nothing to do with a woman's health but instead are designed ONLY to make access to abortion more difficult, that is sexism. It is demeaning and insulting to women, and virtually the entire Republican party is directly or indirectly responsible. When they plainly and publicly seek to close down women's health clinics - places where women go for routine medical help, birth control, and yes, abortions, despite a Supreme Court ruling banning such action, and they do so joyfully and proudly, that is also sexism.

    When your party opposes women's access to birth control, when you try to take away their own decisions about their bodies and their lives, that is sexism. When the party wholly or in part votes against equal pay amendments, when they choose how we should define rape, when they blame rape victims for their actions leading up to being raped, when they try to deny a woman the right to an abortion EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST, and when, even if they don't actively espouse those views, they still either go along with it or sit silently as their party members support and pursue such platforms, that is sexism.

    When you cut funding for programs like WIC, which helps pregnant or breastfeeding mothers while blaming them for their misfortune, that is sexism. When you oppose things like the Violence Against Women Act, which specifically offers protections for victims of domestic violence, something that is a nationwide scourge, and call said violence "a minor distraction," that is sexism.

    When you address a woman by referring to her appearance in the course of a serious interview, that is sexism.

    When you tell someone in blunt, plain terms that they asked a stupid question, that is not sexism.

    There, did that help?

  • abell

    Let's skip the abortion conversation, because, we don't need that mess right now.

    The VAWA was passed again earlier this year. It's disingenuous to argue that the reason it didn't get passed in 2012 was due to sexism, instead of it being used to sneak immigration reform items into law under the guise of 'women's rights.'

    I'm also not going to agree that programs designed to help women should be spared from the shutdown debacle anymore than any of the other non gender specific programs that have been harmed by it. While I don't approve of the messaging, that the poor deserve it, I'm also don't believe that the federal government's role in our society should be to support the impoverished. Not that you and I don't have an obligation to aid the poor, but, the federal government does not and should not. By your logic, am I now sexist?

    Finally, I believe that the use of power by a man to silence a woman can be considered sexism. I will concede in this case, it might also not be, but, given that you're not willing to give that same benefit of the doubt to the VAWA conversation, I remain unconvinced that you're not simply motivated by party politics.

  • emmalita

    Even some Republican women think the Republican Party has become anti-woman. I have friends who have been active in supporting the election of Republican women in local, state and federal elections. One of them confessed to me that she couldn't bring herself to vote for Romney after he named Paul Ryan as his running mate. Turning the tide on the anti-women's rights rhetoric and policies is a real conversation that's happening among Republican women.

  • chanohack

    Paul Ryan scares the shit out of me.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Not only are you cherry picking, you're doing it in ways that don't reflect what I've been saying. The VAWA problem with the Republican party has been an issue not just this year, not just in 2012, but since its very inception in 2005.

    I never mentioned anything about the shutdown, and in fact, it didn't factor into ANY of the issues that I listed. These are not things that just sprung up regarding the shutdown, these are systemic issues that have plagued the Republican party for years. They are issues that they have repeatedly and forcefully opposed, and they are issues that are critical to women being on an equal footing in this nature. But the GOP has made every effort to stymie that movement, to prevent those critical changes from taking place.

    And finally, skipping the abortion conversation pretty much shows your cards, anyway. Calling it "that mess" even more so. The abortion issue isn't a conversation, it is a right. A right granted to women by the Supreme Court, and it is something that they are entitled to. It should not be a conversation at all, and yet it is something that is under constant, unrelenting, brutal assault by the GOP. You can't HAVE a conversation about women's rights in the United States if you're unwilling to talk about abortion.

  • abell

    Fine, let's do abortion.

    First, I'd like to clarify your position as being, if you don't unreservedly support cheap and available access to abortion for all women, you are sexist. Would that be accurate?

  • foolsage

    Would you mind leaving the strawmen out of the conversation? That would be both polite and constructive.

    Nobody said that sexism is based on abortion views. You're putting that view onto GoBS because it's a view that's easily dismantled.

  • abell

    I don't believe it to be a strawman. That's what I've read GoBS opinions on abortion to be. I asked if that's accurate. If it isn't, GoBS will redefine it to what is. You may have noticed, I've had a lot of problems with definitions throughout the space of this conversation and am going to do my best to prevent that before delving into abortion, a much more heated issue.

  • foolsage

    Hmm. I've noted you using strawmen again and again in this discussion. E.g. you conflated (paraphrases) "the Republican Party has problems with institutional sexism" with "all Republicans are sexist". You also conflated "you're expressing something untrue or inaccurate" with "you're being too sensitive", where the latter has implications of sexism that would provide cover for your position. Then, again, as I just noted, you made up out of whole cloth that rather silly definition of sexism based on a lack of unreserved support for cheap and available access to abortion for all women.

    I think it's fairly obvious that it's possible to be sexist yet still support abortion rights, just as it's possible not to be sexist yet deny abortion rights. GoBS didn't express that view though, or anything like it; you put the words in his mouth. Seeing that you've established a habit of putting up strawmen in this very discussion, it's a very small step indeed to determining that this is another example thereof; it's a view that he didn't express, that you used to make his views easier to rebut. Thus, it's a strawman.

  • abell

    I offer the defense of sloppy writing in the place of malicious intent. In most cases, I was simply being overly broad. Hence, why I want to define the terms of this abortion conversation before I have it.

  • foolsage

    Fair enough. I appreciate that you're discussing an issue with several people who might disagree with you on some points, but you are nonetheless remaining polite.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Well, I had a whole thing that I was going to write out, but your way works better, so I'm just going to go ahead and say "YEAH, WHAT HE SAID."

  • abell

    Fine. Please define your position on abortion so we both know what we're dealing with.

  • foolsage

    I think it's safe to say that GoBS supports cheap and available access to abortion for all women, to mirror your wording above. I don't think it's safe to say that this relates to his feelings about sexism though; the topics are only tangentially related.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Oh, come on. If you can't glean my position on abortion at this point, then I honestly don't see the point in this.

  • emmalita

    I don't have the words to express how beautiful I find this speech.

  • Chester Percival Bone

    The difference is that Harry Reid made no mention of the reporter's body. He did not objectify her. Completely different. If all we're looking at is the words, then it's beyond reproach.

  • abell

    Man in power says that questioning woman is smarter than that. When does condescension to a young woman by an old white man stop being sexist? Is it when we're talking about a Democrat?

  • foolsage

    Condescension by one person towards another person is not innately sexist in any sense. It's very probably sexist if and when the condescension exists due to, or is influenced by, the sex of the people being condescended to. I can imagine some exceptions, but that's a good general guideline.

    You could swap this female journalist for a male journalist, and Reid could have said precisely the same thing, and it would have had the same meaning. That's a good clue, right there, that this isn't sexist.

  • abell

    First of all, Reid could have said the same thing, but, it's much less likely. I concede that it's possible that it wasn't sexist, but, we only give the benefit of the doubt to Democrats. Were that Boehner there, I am certain it would be trumpeted as another example of Republican sexism. All Republican actions are accused of racism and sexism (indeed, there's a meme that the only reason Republicans have fought so hard against the President at all is that he's black), but, shit like this gets swept under the rug: http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

  • Sara_Tonin00

    I'll agree with foolsage's reply to you here, and add - if Reid showed a pattern of only condescending to female journalists, or to this one female journalist on a repeated basis, THAT would be sexist. Context can be a factor; it doesn't appear to be in this particular example. (and it's still not the same as bringing up her level of attractiveness)

  • foolsage

    No, whether it's sexist or not has nothing at all to do with political affiliation. Also, it wasn't sexist; it's not just the case that "it's possible that it wasn't sexist". Nothing Reid said or did was related to the sex of the reporter, and Reid could have said precisely the same thing to a male reporter with no change in message or meaning. We might as well be clear if we're going to discuss these issues, and that showed no signs of sexism, so let's not be so ungenerous in our admissions, eh?

    As GoBS eloquently stated at some length above, there are a LOT of reasons why people refer to the modern Republican party as having a problem with institutional sexism, but stuff like what Reid just said? That's not even a tiny part of it.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Condescension does not automatically equal sexism. Sexism is when the response factors her gender into the mix. He didn't respond in that tone because she's a woman, he never brought her gender into it at all. He responded in that tone because it's a stupid fucking question, and no matter how hard you beat this tired drum, that fact will not change.

  • abell

    Wait, you're the one arguing that all Republicans on their face are sexist, and now you're saying that I'm overly sensitive? This is as bad as those stickers from '08, "She's not a woman, she's a Republican."

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    I didn't say you were overly sensitive. I said you were wrong.

  • Bananapanda

    Science isn't his strong suit either - first thing on Google is "Rotika is disagreeing with 97 percent of top climate scientists in the world ..."

  • Slash

    You know, one reason why politicians are so condescending to the talking heads is because most of the talking heads are goddam idiots who don't argue with them but simply allow them to spew stupidity from their gaping pieholes with no questioning whatsoever. And when any one does deign to disagree, they do it in such a deferential manner, it's barely better than if they had said nothing at all.

    Plus, the Republican ones get such regular fluffing from the morons at Fox, a lot of them probably think that's how "journalists" are supposed to behave.

  • Xander

    Can we just accept a law making it legal to punch politicians?

  • emmalita

    No, because the people who would punch politicians are the ones who elect people like Whatshisface and the politicians they would punch are the ones I vote for. #broadsweepinggeneralization

  • abell

    Thank you. I appreciate your common sense defense of people you disagree with.

  • emmalita

    I am a huge fan of respectful disagreement.

  • e jerry powell

    Which makes you one of about 200 Americans.

  • emmalita

    I am the 1%?

  • e jerry powell

    That's WAY LESS than 1%. WAY, WAY LESS.

  • Legally Insignificant

    I recently moved from a mildly red state to a staunchly red state. When it came time to register for a party, I thought long and hard before I re-registered Republican. My theory is that which party I am registered is irrelevant. My political views are the important part. If all "moderates" abandon the Republican party, the Republican party will disappear and the Democrats will splinter into conservative and liberal factions. Then we'll be right back to where we are now. Stories like this really tempt me to jump ship.

  • em.me

    I'm from Canada so I've never heard of this, but why do you need to register your affiliation when you move to a new state? Do they keep it on record or something?

  • Maddy

    I find all of this so strange - especially coming from Australia where voting is compulsory and people complain about it and hardly anyone officially 'registers' with a party and it's definitely not required to vote.

  • BWeaves

    It's so you can vote in the primaries, but only for "your" party.

    I like to register for the wrong party, just so I can screw up their primaries.

  • Mrs. Julien

    Likely so he/she can vote in primaries.

  • Legally Insignificant

    Exactly. In America, you generally can only vote in the primary of the part you're registered. This is especially important in states that recognize third parties.
    For the record, I'm a dude, but I'm perfectly happy being a he/she.

  • em.me

    I feel so ignorant right now, but the American political system is very confusing to foreigners (or at least this foreigner). What are primaries? Would that be like the equivilent to electing provinicial party leaders?

  • Legally Insignificant

    Don't feel bad. I know little to nothing about foreign political structure. Primaries are a way for political parties to determine who they want representing them in the general election. In theory, if political affiliation, within the party and in general, is a perfect bell curve, primaries should elicit two candidates equally distant from true center on the left and right. The problem is that radicals on both sides skew these results and, more often than not, a loony or two will make it to the general election.

  • em.me

    So that is how someone like Michelle Bachman gets elected? That makes me feel a little bit better that it was just a few nutcases that got her in there and not a majority of them.

  • foolsage

    Michelle "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann (R-Denial) represents the 6th District of Minnesota, which has a population of roughly 760,000 people. In no sense whatsoever does Michelle Bachmann represent the views, thoughts, or wishes of the American populace as a whole (~317 million people).

    Even then, Bachmann doesn't actually represent everyone in her district; only the Republicans. Not only that, but Bachmann doesn't represent all Republicans in her district; largely just the tea party-types and other far-right-wing conservatives.

    She only had to win a plurality of votes; people merely had to hate her less than the other candidates overall, for her to win. The situation is complicated because the districts have been redefined over the years (what we call gerrymandering), to make it easier for Republicans to win their districts (and thus win seats in Congress) despite having overall fewer voters supporting them. That's why, for instance, in 2012 the Republicans won a majority of the seats on the House of Representatives, despite the majority of Americans voting for Democrats for Congress.

    It's all more complicated than it ought to be.

  • em.me

    Oh don't worry, I don't think that all Americans think like her. I know that there are millions upon millions of sensible US citizens, it's just unfortunate that the bonkers ones get all the press. The way she got elected sounds like most of the elections in Canada recently, Harper got elected because he managed make the Liberal leader look incompetent and so the left vote was split and the Conservatives (centre-right party) got a majority government even thought they only got 37% of votes.
    And more recently in my home province Christie Clarke (we call her the Wicked Witch of the West) got elected because she constantly reminded people of poor decisions the NDP did TWENTY YEARS AGO. It also helped that less than 50% of the voting population of BC actually bothered to do so.

    Sorry, where was I going with this? Oh yeah, let's just say that both American and Canadian systems are deeply flawed.

  • foolsage

    Sure, America and Canada have a lot in common. You folks are nicer than we are though, overall, and generally less inclined to empower your lunatic fringe. Lucky you. :)

  • Sara_Tonin00

    eh, the majority of her party voted her into the election. Then, sadly, the majority of her state voted her into position.

  • e jerry powell

    HEAVILY gerrymandered. Bachmann lives in Stillwater, basically a small semi-suburb of St. Paul along the Wisconsin border. The district is drawn so strangely around St. Paul that it's almost laughable.

  • e jerry powell

    She's not a senator, though, she's in the House, so it's just that all the people in her heavily gerrymandered district voted her into position.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    ah, you're right, of course. And with graphics!

  • e jerry powell

    I have to be "twice as good..."

  • Guest

    Don't feel bad. I know little to nothing about foreign political structure. Primaries are a way for political parties to determine who they want representing them in the general election. In theory, if political affiliation, within the party and in general, is a perfect bell curve, primaries should elicit two candidates equally distant from true center on the left and right. The problem is that radicals on both sides skew these results and, more often than not, a loony (not the bird) or two will make it to the general election.

  • sanity fair

    That actually depends on the state. In Michigan, as a registered Dem, I could still vote in the Republican primary and the Dem primary. In Indiana, I can only vote in the Democratic as a registered Dem.

  • Snugglepants

    Hmmm. Wouldn't it be funny if this complete insanity from the extremist right was all an intended distraction from the debt ceiling so that the Koch Brothers could sweep in and pay America's debts privately, effectively staging the largest coup in history and buying the worlds super power and ending democracy. Not, like, funny "ha ha".

  • foolsage

    It's not possible. Even if they had that money, and they do not, and even if they told America's debtors that they'd pay off America's debts, that doesn't render any obligation for America to do anything in return, nor does it offer the payer of said debts any power or control over America's government, in any sense.

    "You paid our debts? How nice of you. Get back in line."

  • e jerry powell

    "Nobody buts Davey in a corner."

  • Slash

    Not even the Kochs have that much money. It's something like $14 trillion. At this point, not even the Chinese have enough money to buy us out.

  • foolsage

    Our public debt is ~$16.9T right now.

  • sanity fair

    I'm even more embarrassed than usual to live in Indiana. This idiot doesn't represent my district, but still...

  • Jiffylush

    There's more than corn in Indiana!

    My dad lived in South Bend and I would see that commercial when I visited him. It really helped my "Indiana sucks" argument.

    Naturally we spent a lot of time at "the beach" and by the beach I mean St. Joes, and by St. Joes I mean the little bit of sandy shore on the lake by the nuclear power plant.

  • Mrs. Julien

    "South Bend. It sounds almost like dancing."

    I can't be the only one thinking that.

  • Catagisreading

    The greatest Hepburn. Audrey can suck it.

    I have nothing to say on the issue at hand because American politics have become utterly incomprehensible to me.

  • Jiffylush

    The GOP is blaming the media, it is their default stance. The thing is that they really have no choice but to blame the media because they don't have a position to defend. To form an opinion on an issue they have to find out what Obama says and say the opposite. The position of the party these days seems to be saying no to whatever the Democrats want to do.

    Unfortunately the media is to blame, but not for the reason that the Republicans want you to think. The media is treating both sides as if they have valid and legitimate stances in this and every position. The fact that there are differing opinions on an issue doesn't necessarily mean that there are multiple valid points of view.

    Instead of covering this story as "Republicans shut down government to stop a law that was approved by the three branches of our government" they say things like "Republicans and Democrats can't agree on spending bill". This does a disservice to the American people. The point of the news is to educate and inform. They are afraid that one side will call them biased. Newsflash, they are going to call you biased anyway. If you are covering a deeply partisan issue and neither conservatives or liberals have a problem with your coverage then you are probably doing it wrong.

    Here is an interesting read from a commentator for Aljazeera. Relax small minded people, it's a well respected international news agency like the BBC and nothing like what passes for news (the cable news networks) here.


  • Holli Downs

    "Honey, you have a dynamite shape but you're going to need to shut up and let a man tell us what's happening."
    Jon Hamm, S06E19- SNL Live from studio 6H

  • bastich

    I'm amazed that Rotika just didn't go old-school SNL and say, "Carol, you ignorant slut."

  • Sassy Pikachu

    Living in a red-state surrounded by tea-party members is not easy, but every time I hear someone talking about how a woman should listen to "her man" just made me want to punch all of them.

    Or at least let them feel the wrath of Aunt Irma.

  • Bert_McGurt

    So if she was ugly, she wouldn't have to be honest? Is that HIS excuse?

    These f*cking guys, seriously. I can SMELL the slime from here. Curious that he doesn't mention how the $2 billion "over 10 years" - $200 million a year - equates to less than 0.03% of the annual military budget. You spend over a half-TRILLION on the armed forces alone, but $200 mil is going to break the bank? WHO THE F*CK TAUGHT YOU MATH?

    For the record - why are they trotting out the opinions of CEO's as if they're wholly representative of people's thoughts on the issue?

  • lowercase_ryan

    cocksucking motherfucking piece of shit waste of life get fucked with a crowbar you god damn lying pile of filth and excrement

  • e jerry powell

    Don't hold back...

  • Jiffylush
  • Mrs. Julien

    In an act of solidarity and because I am moving to a new job soon and therefore won't have to stick around for any awkwardness, I am going to ask the cafeteria manager here to suggest to the male cashier that he either a. start calling the male customers "honey", b. refrain from calling the female customers "honey", or, of course, c. all of the above.

  • e jerry powell

    I call everybody honey, honey.

    And if they get their balls tied in knots because of it...

  • emmalita

    You cackle with glee? Take pictures of their angry faces? Do a dance of joy? Honey. ;)

  • e jerry powell

    Oh, yes, honey.

  • dizzylucy

    Ugh, I've got one of those. I'd love to explain that if he wouldn't call my male colleagues that, he shouldn't call me that either, and quite frankly it's not appropriate in a professional setting at ALL, but he's also the guy who used his business email to forward tons of those ridiculously false and racist political chain emails during the last election, including to his clients and other community/industry professionals.

    I responded a few times with the snopes links, and he kept at it, so I'm thinking trying to explain the "honey" thing to him would be like trying herd cats.

  • Maguita NYC

    Had one of those before, a colleague who always called all women at the office "honey". I did not like it at all, for it sounded as if he does not believe in remembering any woman's name, and somehow "honey" was the acceptable replacement for all.

    Then I started calmly, patiently, tirelessly yet automatically correcting him every time he called me honey. "no, it's Maguita". And whatever would be his comeback, reaction, eyeroll or whatever else he threw at me, I kept on calmly looking him in the eye, and correcting him. ESPECIALLY if there was an audience.

    It took less than a week before he started calling me by my name. And you know what, other women took notice and started demanding the same. Even if somehow we became "less fun" with a stick up our asses. (yeah, he told one of the other ladies that once, because she refused to go by "honey" as well).

  • Uriah_Creep

    I firmly believe that the solution to this problem is to put a good-sized stick up his ass. Sideways.

  • Maguita NYC

    I see you are quite aware of the existence of such a-holes Uriah, and have no more patience for their mindviews?

  • Uriah_Creep

    My parents had 5 boys as well as 2 girls, and they taught all of us that it was important to respect not only our sisters, but all women. In fact, my dad made it clear that the measure of a man could be gauged by how he treated seniors and women. The lesson stuck, and I've always had a great deal of disdain for the frat-boy "women are toys" attitude, or the workplace "honey" syndrome you described.

  • e jerry powell

    Oh, I have just the thing (but you knew I would).

    I keep a special tree in the back for just such purposes.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    paging HR...?

  • dizzylucy

    Doesn't work for our office, an outside contractor. And we're a tiny company, no HR, otherwise I would have ages ago.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    ah. Yes, we've got a former-employee now an outside sales rep - because the company was too nervous to keep him on. But he sells really well. Oh, the stories to be told.

  • Some Guy

    Sorry, but the fact that Bill Clinton and the Kennedy's are/were the stalwart standard bearers of your party, not to mention Spitzer, Weiner, et al, means you have very little room to talk about rampant sexism and political parties.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Congratulations, you have four examples, all of whom are no longer actually in office. Solid argument.

    I can give you 278 that are currently in office, and that's just getting warmed up.

    By all means, let's play this game.

  • abell

    Wait, you can find 278 Republicans currently in office that had inappropriate sexual relationships while the were in office?

    No, please, list them.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Ha. Cute. Except the comment that I responded to was specifically talking about rampant sexism within the party, and that's fish in a fuckin barrel when it comes to the GOP.

    A for effort, F for reading comprehension.

  • Mrs. Julien

    Sexism and sexual opportunism are two different things. Just because they are trying to bang every woman in sight does not mean that they think that said women are stupid. All they require is availability.

    Also, holding up the ghost of the Kennedy family is as helpful to your argument as saying Nixon is a good example of current Republicanism.

  • Individual politicians screwing individual, consenting women is VASTLY different than a political party whose ideological subjugation screws ALL women.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Follow Us

Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation



30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins