Glen Urquhart’s Sexist Commercial
Commenter phil brought our attention to a radio ad being played on WGMD in support of Glen Urquhart.
Glen Urquhart’s “Fox” Commercial
(click on the link to get the audio)
In the ad a woman’s voice is heard asking for a guard job at a henhouse. The male voice (I assume a rooster) says “you’re a fox” to which the woman’s voice replies “I’m a former fox.” I actually think the ad is fairly effective otherwise, it communicates that Michele Rollins is a hypocrite, railing about bailouts while accepting them herself.
You make the call – is this a sly innuendo to Ms. Rollins past as a beauty queen and implying that she is no more?
Tags: DE-AL, Glen Urquhart, Michele Rollins
It’s not just a radio ad – he’s also using it as a robo-call. I know because it was on my answering machine when I got home from work last night. It’s really pretty funny, even if it is somewhat sexist.
I think if he removed the “former fox” line from the commercial it would be very good. I do think it is an effective commercial.
“former fox” is only half of the sexism… the ad also has fake Rollins speak with an over-the-top simper. It is like making Urquhart speak with a Hitler accent.
It is Rollins herself that shows pageant footage in her own commercial. Fair game. Former fox is a little personal though, even if the henhouse metaphor is good.
That’s my problem, exhausted. There’s plenty to criticize Rollins about without going into sexist critiques of her looks. Why would you unnecessarily piss off people when you don’t have to?
Yea but for all her money her Jamaica travel spots look like they were produced by a guy that got fired from public access:)
Why would you unnecessarily piss off people when you don’t have to?
…psssst… they are Republicans….
Republicans have always pursued and won the lowbrow vote with cheap lying mockery, starting with Reagan: “There you go again.”
By the way… Urk has now smashed Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment into dust, and spit upon the dust. So much for Urk’s Reaganism.
The conservative want it both ways. Who doesn’t remember the furor over “lipstick on a pig” during the Presidential campaign. The cons. were having a stroke over the sexist nature of that reference.
Hey I googled Sexy and Glen Urquhart and ended up here 🙂
“Why would you unnecessarily piss off people when you don’t have to?”
OK, you really think that anyone who’d give DA a paying job makes any sense? 🙂
Hey I googled Sexy and Glen Urquhart
Personally, I would have kept that to myself.
This is almost as bad as Urquhart’s nazi “gaffe,” although that in no way excuses either this ad or the nazi gaffe.
Rather than try to make a valid point and leave it at that, he lunges into a sexist reference.
As to the merits, WTC needed TARP funds (or at least thought it did). Would Delaware have been better served if its largest local bank went under?
“The conservative want it both ways. Who doesn’t remember the furor over “lipstick on a pig” during the Presidential campaign. The cons. were having a stroke over the sexist nature of that reference.”
Bob, that is because it is an afront to Conservative White God to make fun of St Sarah.
I still think M-roll looks like a character from The Wall. she probably has similar political leanings to the Judge.
The “lipstick on a pig” controversy is a perfect example of a completely made up controversy. Conservatives suddenly decided that a commonly-used phrase was all of a sudden sexist. Of course this is the same party that put out that “our women are hot” video. Basically the conservative definition of sexism is criticism of a conservative woman in good standing with the movement.
Publius,
The wisdom of TARP is a completely different question, and one that Rollins will continually have to answer, since she’s a direct beneficiary. What really sticks in my craw is that the board members of WTC (including Rollins) gave themselves raises after running their bank into the ground and needing government rescue. Then she has the NERVE to complain about the bailouts. She’s a real piece of work.
The ad could be perceived as “sexist”, but only if one tries really hard to find it. If one puts it in the context of how many on this blog bought into Jason’s petulant Kool-Aid dripping diatribe, wherin he finds racism in the phrase “It’s Your Money”, I guess anything is possible.
At any rate, it does pale by comparison to the treatment of Palin by the left, and the media.
what makes her a former fox? was she in a political position before?
I’m on the fence a little with this one.
that being said…it’s a dumb commercial all around.
LOL sexist preschool stories. If you go that route, the fox was claiming not to be a fox, but the employer said she still was. Oh, shucks another attack falls flat.
How about the substance of the argument? Should someone who is tied in with government contracts and got a 4 fold compensation increase guard the taxpayers interest?
It is a double meaning. “Former fox” (in the sense of “predator”) because she resigned from the Wilmington Trust board after her TARP-funded compensation became public. This is 100% fair and accurate, and she had it coming.
And then of course it is also calling her a faded beauty. Which is a cheap shot even for a Republican.
The ad is funny, thought provoking, and powerful in is invocation of images except for liberal opponents who want to find a way to attack her that is not issue based. I don’t think we would ever get those votes so I don’t really care. This is from people who think our money is racist. Now guarding your money is sexist. I wonder what Jones-Potter taking our money is?
I am not surprised that you all took a perverted view of things. Par
As for her beauty, she is as lovely as ever. It is her view of bailouts and tax money at question.
Sorry, Republicans don’t know anything about funny.
It is no coincidence that conservatives own hate radio, but liberals own comedy.
“it does pale by comparison to the treatment of Palin by the left, and the media.”
So let’s see — pointing out that a good-looking woman who can’t speak coherently probably got where she is at least partly on her looks is far worse than a sophomoric dig at a former beauty queen. I guess you’re right.
As for her beauty, she is as lovely as ever.
Too late.
Nice try though at cleaning up Gaffe #2.
“Should someone who is tied in with government contracts and got a 4 fold compensation increase guard the taxpayers interest?”
Good question. HEre’s another: Should a would-be developer who tried to profit by ignoring the public interest in steering development to areas with existing infrastructure, and instead tried to build where taxpayers would have to spend heavily to improve infrastructure, be trusted to guard the taxpayers’ interest?
Good question, Geezer.
I love how conservatives have discovered sexism now that they have a prominant female politician. They must have slept through the 90s – oh wait, they were the main ones pushing stories about which politicians were ugly and which ones weren’t.
“— pointing out that a good-looking woman who can’t speak coherently probably got where she is at least partly on her looks…”
Well, there ya go…*Exhibit A* in the case of sexism.
I’ll admit, while she isn’t as ‘clean and articulate’ as our President, compared to our Vice President, she is rather ‘good looking’.
“can’t speak coherently”?
Odd, I understand her perfectly, as do most who reside in America. Comparatively, she is rather plain-spoken and that’s part of the attraction. I’m a bit surprised a cultivated gentleman such as yourself admits to a comprehension issue. Most of the time, you seem to be on the ball. Perhaps you should spend a little more time outside of your urban cultural oasis, and mingle with the unwashed. (vacations in Sussex County don’t count)
“…oh wait, they were the main ones pushing stories about which politicians were ugly and which ones weren’t.”
I don’t think the conservatives, as a group, are any more responsible for that tasteless comparison than liberals (as a group) are responsible for this sentiment by some of your progressive brothers – NSFW:
http://www.whiterabbitcult.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/product_sarah_palin.jpg
If you’re interested, these little gems are still available.
We live in an extremely misogynistic society. Nutpicking does not prove your point.
Let us know when that t-shirt shows up on a declared candidate.
“We live in an extremely misogynistic society.”
Unfortunately, yes we do.
“Nutpicking does not prove your point.”
But,,, it proves yours?
I see.
Glen Urquhart is not a random nut. He’s a random nut running for Congress and could possibly by the GOP nominee.
I wouldn’t vote for Urqurhart if he were the only one on the ticket.
Sorry, pal, check the transcripts. She’s incoherent, except when she’s quoting the conservative equivalent of Hallmark cards. Maybe she’s just speaking a language only swell-headed first responders understand.
MICHELE ROLLINS’ NEW VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehw6-yX7MO0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
That video is priceless. Way to go GOP. Put up another lying hypocrite.
A dubbed-in “No” over top a freeze-frame of Rollins? Even Breitbart would be embarrassed at that edit.
How stupid must the target demographic be for this video.
Love the Urquhart commercial except for the sexist comment about being a former fox. Hate the new YouTube video. My 5 year old could do a better job than that sorry video. Of course the best one of all is http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0kh4xhem8tM&v=0kh4xhem8tM&gl=US
Awesome video. Completely exposes that she is a LIAR. Conservative wing nut Bill Colley played both audio clips from this video on his program the other day and was PISSED that she was using him as subject in her lies.
and round of applause for Urquhart commercial. Minus the sexist comment. If it even was one.
Oh my. It does appear that Rollins was caught in a lie.
BTW, I’m getting tired of the conservative defense “we didn’t know the word had more than one meaning.” Yes, it’s OUR fault when we see there’s alternative interpretations of sentences.
I’d like to hear Rollins’ full answer to the original question. Given Colley’s MO and rabid support of and work for Urquhart, I’m skeptical of anything that issues from him. It’s possible – not likely, but possible – he cut out the next part of her answer that clarified it and matched her second statement when she’s wagging the finger at Glenny Boy.
Well, at least he didn’t call her a prostitute – that’s something.
Yes, after Joe Miller got criticism for tweeting that Lisa Murkowski was a prostitute, this member of the party of personal responsibility blamed a staff member.
“As to the merits, WTC needed TARP funds (or at least thought it did). Would Delaware have been better served if its largest local bank went under?”
Rollins as been appearing at Q&As and insisting her bank was “forced” to take the money they “didn’t need.” Whether or not that’s true, that’s the claim she’s making, so your point even if more accurate is sort of irrelevant, I think.
This is the lamest politcal site I have ever been on. Please liberals and republicans write something important and stop with the stone throwing. Delawareans need to elect a responsible politician in 2010. I could care less where they live or if they have money or not, let’s discuss some real issues.
You’ll get a full refund in the mail.
insisting her bank was “forced” to take the money they “didn’t need.”
They many have been *forced* into the money (this is the Capital Purchase Program), but they’ve not yet paid any of it back, although they are paying the dividends. Those dividends are 5% for 5 years (the figure goes up at Year 6) and in today’s environment, that is a pretty decent return for basically parking money. Meaning that WT ought to have some incentive to pay that money back ASAP if they could. WT projected that they’d pay it back in 3Q this year, so they have some time to meet their target.
Cassandra –
Could you explain how a bank could have been “forced” into taking the TARP money? That claim really confuses me. I’m not in banking or finance, so please use small words. 😉
I believe part of the TARP program is that all banks were supposed to take some money so that some weren’t “singled out.” Of course, WTC has not paid theirs back so they obviously needed it.
Good ad. Speaks directly to his main point.
I’m not in banking or finance either, but the original infusion of TARP funds was *forced* on the top 10 or so banks, whether they needed it or not. The theory being that 1) the bank’s regulators could require that (making it impossible to say NO) and 2) that getting all of the biggies to take the money would not produce the same stigma that making only the banks in trouble take the money. The next round of CPP was focused on *regionally systemic* banks and certain investment funds which were also asked to apply for funds. As I understand it, the *asking* was a regulatory requirement, so you don’t have much choice but to comply.
All of the banks and funds with TARP funds have to be approved to pay the money back and you have to satisfy a small checklist of items (increased capital cushions is one) before your regulator tells you you are ready to pay back funds.
I could throw up everytime I receive a robo call from Glen Urquhart. It is so packed with lies it is incredible. I am a retired Wilmingotn Trust Company employee and know them to be fair and honorable. You Bill Colley, Glenn Urquhart and Vance Phillips all know you are lying but
continue on with same mantra. So God wants Glenn Urquhart to win does he? How despicable of you to use the Lord’s name in such a manner. Never will I vote for liar such as Urquhart, never will I listen to Bill the liar or Vance who already has a shakey past. You three are quite a trio. You even use little children for your cause, such as the child who called in to the show in Bridgeville Saturday morning.
SHAME ON YOU ALL!!