Knock me over with a feather…she’s usually so vacuous and such a pawn of the right wing, I thought I’d never get a bit of information from her. But to my surprise, she brings a revelation. It’s kind of a stupid revelation, but it actually is something I didn’t know. And don’t really care about.
People love to play identity politics around elections, exploiting the differences of various candidates and straining to imbue them with meaningful meaning that truly means something.
Whether it’s Barack Obama’s race, Hillary Clinton’s gender, John McCain’s age or Mitt Romney’s faith, purveyors of identity politics (on both sides of the aisle) say these things will inform — for better or worse — their policies, should they become president.
The latest? Lindsey Graham, the longtime South Carolina senator, could be the first lifelong bachelor president elected since James Buchanan in 1856.
That’s nice, I guess. I really wasn’t concerned about the marital status of any of the candidates (except Clinton’s, which is constantly waved around in the news). I don’t know anything about Huckabee’s, or Santorum’s, or Carson’s, or Fiorina’s, or Cruz’s spouses, so if you told me any of them weren’t married, I wouldn’t be shocked or surprised. I haven’t seen any news that makes a big deal of Graham’s marital status, either.
Except for this thing from Cupp.
Why, it’s almost as if she’s trying to gin up a controversy where one doesn’t exist.
I’m also wondering why someone who is so consistently pro-Republican would bring it up. It’s not as if it is something that would annoy a liberal — that Graham never say a war he didn’t want join is more than enough — but it might alienate some of the obsessively pro-straight-marriage folks who are disappointed that he doesn’t have 19 kids. Is she trying to encourage conflict in her own party?
At least Cupp continues to promote her own irrelevance!
Painting someone as a homosexual to sabotage their career, pretty much standard right-wing homophobia.
Actually we did hear something about Santorum’s wife. She had an abortion in 1996.
^ This. She may not be campaigning for anybody, but chances are good she’s campaigning against Graham.
…and while I write “^ This”, another comment appears! I referred to comment 1.
It’s not that difficult to understand: The primaries are coming up (in a fucking year, by fucking god, it will never end) and there are lots of Republican candidates. Republicans like Cupp rarely like EVERY Republican, and in this case Cupp does not like Graham, so she is trying to find some shit to fling at him. As tribal as American politics is, the “in-fighting” can be just as vicious. Hell, some of the worst smears invented by fellow party-members during primary season go on to be used as a weapon by the opposing party when the candidates’ are finally chosen. It happens so regularly, and yet no one learns from it. Perhaps we are less tribal than we are given credit for, or perhaps the politicians and talking heads are just very, very short-sighted and stupid. I know where I’d place my bets.
Buchanan was also the last former Secretary of State to become president until Hilary wins.
But you can’t use that to imply she’s a homosexual so I doubt Cupp cares about that factoid.
(There are also lots of rumors that Buchanan was gay.)
Our current governor John Kasich also Republican, was not married when he was in the US House of Represenatives. He shared a house, if I remember either with a staff member or another bachelor Congressman. There were whispers about his sexuality even though he had been married from 1975 to 1980. Then suddenly he got married in 1997 and coincidentally he ran for President in 2000.
There is the stigma that one has to be married to be a viable candidate just like people think the person has to believe in god. Both are ridiculous but candidates play into it.
That’s as far as I got. You want me to stop treating you like a vapid poseur, stop talking in meaningless partisan catch-phrases.
“…straining to imbue them with meaningful meaning that truly means something.”
Someone pays this woman to write for a living?
OP:
drst, #6:
Oh, but you can!
Buchanan was the last president who never married a woman. People used that to say he’s a big ol’ queerbo. Hillary Clinton never married a woman, and the right wing frequently calls her a big ol’ queerbo.
Right Wing means never having to say you’re logic.
Yeah, I would say it’s a much more vague and generic sort of issue for some, not necessarily with the implication that he’s gay. Many people (definitely not just Republicans) think there’s something (who knows what) wrong with you, if you’re single, divorced, gay, bi, trans, or if in any way your life doesn’t resemble this Traditional Family™ nonsense. “You’re not like us” (to be clear, I’m not like “us”), and that’s supposed to be a sign of a personal failing of some sort, because of course we all like how we are. Even if the “problem” is simply that he’s a straight bachelor, you’re still thinking that’s representing something about how he’s not likable or charismatic, uncooperative, uncaring, doesn’t have the experience to know how to condescend to citizens like they’re children, or whatever the case may be. He doesn’t have the married/parent properties that married people or parents have, as if that’s a definite and real thing that tells us anything useful about an individual, which is a problem even if he meets all of the other ridiculous criteria people care about.
Just try to notice what you’re doing every time you hear a candidate talk about their family lives, as a measure of their experience, qualifications, or their ability to understand or care about the concerns of the “average” voter. If you really don’t believe a single word of that (harder to do than it sounds, even for somebody like me!), then you’re probably on the right track. But just saying you don’t care or that something else matters more (like how great/awful their policies are), doesn’t mean you’re not falling into the same trap.
Would Graham’s ideal running mate be Condoleeza Rice?
If you really want to start a rumor, contend that he’s a eunuch.
[clutching pearls] So I gots to vote for him, to get a bachelor in the White House, since its been so long since another was there?
.cough cough.
to go all homophobic (which I’m not, honest) I’m always bemused by Graham’s accent and mimed pearl clutching. Reading them as a “tell”.
Regardless of that: Graham in the WH is my nightmare fuel. Whether he is bachelor or not, is irrelevant to him being nightmare fuel.
What is Cupp trying to say? Smearing him, only for being a bachelor, or promoting him for his bachelor status? Me so confused.
@naturalcynic:
Really? That’s what you’re going with?
How delightful.
Santorum’s wife was shacked up with and banging a 60-plus doctor when she was in her 20s. That sounded pretty good to me until I hit 60; then it sounded like too much work.
US President Andrew Shepherd was single when we was elected. Some say that was the reason for his electability.
Well, okay, that was fiction. I am unconvinced that the circus around elections is real.
S.E.Cupp wrote:
S.E.Cupp, aren’t you an analyst to “dissect” his record? When you said, , we say, and Cupp’s response is . So, CNN, when does it become NEWS for a correspondent to tell correspondents what to write about, instead of informing the public of the subject under discussion? Is this merely a preamble of what we’re to expect from future stories from Cupp about Graham: That Cupp will ignore his homelife and focus on his PUBLIC policies? hope so. Even public figures deserve a private aspect for their lives. To focus on their homelife (which affects only themselves) is a distraction from their PUBLIC policies, that which affect Everybody.
So stop telling us ABOUT your job and DO IT.
I was gonna say Dick Cheney in a wig, but same diff.
This is just the beginning. If Sen. Graham gets any traction, the insinuations of gaiety will turn to flat out accusations. Not by any candidate directly, but by
journalistsWND bloggers and PACs with no obvious ties to anyone in particular. I get the impression that, among repubs, L.G. is probably the least liked announced candidate besides Rand Paul. Donald Trump polls higher, FFS. Apparently, you can be too hawkish. At least, this go around. Except for Rand, they all want to bomb somebody, but Lindsey wants to bomb everybody.Can we make a statement that is more redundantly redundant that is truly redundant? Space-christ, who the hell takes this woman seriously?
She’s pretty hot, so I can see people just nodding along dumbly to whatever she blurts on TV, one hand down their pants. But in writing? There’s no excuse for that. Maybe they think that she uses the comments section like Tinder?
Don’t blog when you’re sleepy.
“Could”? Now that is some unbridled right-wing optimism right there.
Ragutis @21
I really don’t know if I can put into words why that statement feels so wrong, but it just does, so here goes.
Something to do with how sexism of this nature is only ever levied against women with contrary views: dismiss them as sex objects among their ideological peers, a Pygmalion whose only value is the masturbatory fantasy, whose only accomplishment is looking good and saying the right things. It has it’s roots in how men will dismiss the hard work that she has put into crafting herself, dedicating herself to her beliefs, and achieving what she has on her own merits. Whether they be in a meritocracy as despicable as modern conservativism or not, she has still branded herself, made opportunities for herself, and has succeeded. I think it also has some relation to the sexist cliche that successful women owe their success to sleeping their way to the top and offer little to nothing else, a relation seemingly confirmed by the remainder of the post, in which it is stated succinctly that her work and words have little value on their own (though that is subjectively determined and cannot be applied to the feelings of those who’ve aligned themselves with her.)
Like I said, it’s hard to put it into words, but hopefully by trying, hopefully by other eyes seeing what I’m trying to say and identifying what it is I mean, someone can tell me if my reservations with such a framing is deserved.
throwaway @24,
Thank you. Ragutis’ comment @21 bothered me a bit, too. In my case, it’s that I know any of the men who value SE Cupp for her fuckability are judging me the same way, so why should that reflect on her merit if it shouldn’t reflect on mine? The fact that progressives look at SE Cupp and figure the only people who value her are the ones who masturbate to her is just a reminder that progressive circles aren’t always safe spaces for women (as well as any other disadvantaged group).
@ throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble:
That was kind of dickish, wasn’t it? I’d like to blame a bad mood and beer, but that’s not an excuse. The article was crap, and that’s what I should have dismissed. IIRC, she’s got a Masters from Cornell, she’s pro-gay, and the only openly atheist Republican I can think of. (Although she often sounds like she really wishes she could be a Christian) She has worked hard, and has achieved quite a bit, becoming as successful as she is in a business and party as overwhelmingly dominated by old white guys as media and the Republicans are. But read the comment sections on conservative sites about her or an article or tv appearance by her. They do tend to run heavy with dudebros commenting on her looks and bangability. Or they used to, until she pissed off
fratfanboys by criticizing Ron Paul.Anyway, I shouldn’t be wasting so much of the internet’s ink when all I really should be saying is: That was a crap comment by me, snark or no snark. I’ve clearly offended at least you, if not more, with my carelessness. I’m sorry.
toska @25:
Thank you for that insight. I had that in mind but didn’t know how to phrase it.
Which is why I try to use my privileged position to influence those in my sphere, as small as it is and in small ways, but always for the better. Like the co-worker who kept insisting on calling Caitlyn Jenner ‘Bruce’ and referring to her as ‘he’ and ‘him’. You’d have sworn I was talking to a 5 year old.
(TW: Transphobia)
“Can you believe this Bruce Jenner thing?”
“You mean Caitlyn Jenner?”
“No, his name is Bruce Jenner. Can you believe it?”
“Her name is Caitlyn Jenner and I don’t need to believe it, it’s her life.”
“His.”
“Excuse me?”
“His name. His life. Bruce.”
“Uh, her name, her life, Caitlyn.”
“HE! HIS! HIM!”
“Enjoy your lunch.”
Ragutis @26:
Now, before you think I”m nothing but critical of you, I wanted to leave the ‘dickish’ thing alone for others to deal with, because I really don’t want you to think I have nothing but criticism of you after such an effort of making things right; however, I’d rather you hear it now. Suffice to say, gendered insults or derogatory remarks based on genitalia are not acceptable here on this blog’s comments section, whatever gender it is. That’s all.
Yes, that’s very problematic. Though, I’m not so sure she’d fare any better if she were in, say, strictly an atheist sphere, either, given what we know now. It’s a universal problem, as toska alluded to in 25, and not limited to Republicans.
I do appreciate the fact that you apologized for this and that you understood why it was problematic. You are a great example at ‘getting it’.
Let me reiterate how impressed I am with your ‘getting it’ again so I can leave this comment on a high note. :)
I thought “dickish” kind of appropriate, considering the sexist tone of my post. But, “I was just being a jerk and not thinking enough before typing.” works too, and would have been as accurate and more appropriate.
And yes, casual (or explicit) sexism, intentional or not, is not a problem solely for the conservative/believer side of the internets or any other media. But still, look at Fox News. There’s more female leg on display there on any given day than you’d find at a performance by the Rockettes. FFS, there are websites and youtube channels devoted to Fox hosts’ legs. MSNBC and CNN have no shortage of young attractive women hosting or reporting, but I don’t think Andrea Mitchell or Candy Crowley would ever even be considered for a job at Fox, impressive as fuck credentials or no. The problem is universal, but (IMHO) one side has it slightly worse.