David Schuster needs to be able to keep his barroom talk in the bar and off TV.
I don't know why Chelsea is such a magnet for this kind of nonsense; I've always felt vaguely protective toward her - she seems like a good kid, and she may be the most-abused Presidential child in my political lifetime - going back to JFK. She's out plugging for her mom, which is totally appropriate; Schuster needs to spend some quality time covering high school football; he's no where near ready for national presence.
When the mirror is held up for us, it is strange to see the reactions to the reflections we see.
It was a wrong comment but not overly obscene, just a reflection of the state of discourse in the US today - on TV, in the news, on blogs, in private and public life. Things are said today and allowed that would earn you a beating in the past. The politicians do it. The reporters do it. The children do it. The bloggers do it. The writers do it. The talking heads of all types do it everywhere - talk shows, blogs, news shows.......
Is he a dipshit?
A look in the mirror for you
What say you, AL?
I agree that it is distressing to be compared to a pimp.
Pimps take 100% of your earnings, in exchange for full health care coverage that includes contraception and abortions. And they're always telling you how much they love you, which is annoying and condescending.
It's almost as bad as calling somebody a ...
After the post title, I agree with every word Armed Liberal said.
It may have been a stupid comment but I think we have become incredibly hypersensitive.
Schuster apologized...fine...but we should all learn to lighten up a little.
Hell, what Laura Ingraham said about McCain (without naming him) when she introduced Romney at CPAC was far more offensive than this, IMHO.
Dave - if he'd said it about Hillary, insensitive, bla bla, big deal. But for some reason I have this silly cultural predisposition to protect kids. To say it about Chelsea demonstrates that some judgement circuit in his head simply hasn't developed yet. And until it does...
A.L.
The comment was stupid. However, she is no longer a kid. She is 28.
But Chelsea is far from a kid any longer, and she's voluntarily put herself out in the public view where's she's fair game for the nasty, brutish press. When she was truly a child her parents sheltered her very effectively--one of the few (maybe the only?) thing I respected the Clintons for. But now she's a grown woman and she's learning that politics is nasty, brutish, and never as short as we'd like.
Oh, and it seems to me that Amy Carter got much more abusive scrutiny than Chelsea ever has...
kid != child.
A.L.
The hypersensitivity is real enough (I call it "fragility" or "brittleness", myself).
What compounds that is the coarsening of common parlance. "Pimp", specifically, has been hammered into seeming normality over two decades of gangsta-thug "culture" being sold to kids and teens. Charming.
Here's the problem as I see it - and I'm watching the conservative commentariat work themselves into a frenzy on the injustice of this.
Chelsea is a young woman who is - in essence - supporting her mom. When commentators say 'pimped out' regarding Colin Powell, it's less sensitive than it would be regarding Chelsea, both because a) she's a young woman, and hence he "'ho" label is a big red button; and b) she's not a real player here. When she runs for office herself, or gets a front-line appointment, everyone's skin needs to be thicker.
Until then, she deserves to be handled gently. Or at least gentlemanly.
A.L.
While I sympathize with general point here, I can't go along with this reasoning.
It is not credible to think that "ho" could stigmatize Chelsea Clinton, who is commendably un-ho-like. Of course it is still offensive, but that kind of offense is ladled out to black women every day (thanks to the culture that Nortius pointed to) and it takes a truly egregious and well-publicized incident (Don "Dipshit" Imus) to get a reaction out of the bourgeoisie. Imus worked for a major network too, yet it took a bit of political pressure for that network to act.
And certainly Schuster intended no such malice as do those who publicly fantasize about George Bush's daughters being tortured or killed in Iraq. Granted, that kind of thing doesn't come from MSNBC employees - they just report it as news, and assume that such stuff is offensive only to conservatives.
In fact, the incessant "whore" and "bitch" chant is generally considered offensive only to conservatives, and the reason for the offense is assumed to be racism. So rap-culture references are becoming ubiquitous in popular parlance, and for David Schuster it obviously came trippingly to the tongue.
The lanaguage outside of current venucular is totally correct. There is no access to Chelsea as an adult unless the family controls the situation. Take a look at her sorority apprearance in California. She does not take questions from the press like any other backer can do. She is put on display like the plastic fantastic Barbie doll she is for money appearnaces only. Schuster is totally correct.
I've seen Michelle Malkin called far worse by people in the same room as her on the cable news shows. Alas, none of them have been forced to apologize from someones political machine.
The bigger story is that MSNBC appears beholden to the Clinton campaign, a point that seems lost on many.
But isn't it better that decent standards are enforced only sometimes rather than never?
Saying "this isn't acceptable, if it's being done to a Clinton" or "this isn't acceptable, unless it's being done to a conservative" is half way to admitting the truth.
The present case shows that guys don't just have to talk like that, and women don't just have to put up with it. Exceptions are made when somebody who matters is offended.
You might put it another way: Is it better that decent standards are applied only to some people, rather than to all?
And the answer of course is no. This leads only to contempt for such "standards", and still more contempt for whatever authority enforces it.
#15 from Glen Wishard:
I don't think that is putting it another way. I think it's putting forward another option - one that isn't available.
David Blue -
I do not always agree with you but I do here. The answer that MUST become our societies answer to this kind of slur once more is that it is NOT acceptable. To call anyone in public or private life a "Ho" by innuendo, as I think Schuster did, deserves ostracism from the society for a time until there is the proper penalty for improper behavior. That is my point to AL above.
I do NOT think he should be calling Schuster derogatory names, we are adults and can figure that out for ourselves. Saying that Schuster is NOT a gentleman for his comment is enough. We do not have to stoop to his level. (Schuster's)
The point was made to me as a teen and I seem to have lost the lesson until recently. Using gutter language diminishes the user not the target of the tirade.
'nuf said....