Way to keep it classy Republicans
According to a report published by Mother Jones’ David Corn, the GOP affiliated group, FreedomWorks, recorded a promotional video that featured a fake panda performing oral sex on a woman impersonating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Two female interns were chosen to participate in the video, according to the report, one wearing the panda suit and the other dressed as Clinton. The video was created ahead of the group’s FreePAC conference, which was held in late July 2012, and it was intended to be shown at the event.
Family values…?
Rule 34 of the Internet proved once again.
Seriously, you should read the entire article at Mother Jones. These Family Values were funded by the usual river of wingnut welfare and apparently there is so much here that not only could they pay off Dick Armey to the tune of millions, but it funded the high life of its President.
FreedomWorks really is a Dick Army.
There isn’t a functioning brain cell among them. Who, in their right mind, would think this was in any way okay or funny?
Sex is the only thing that drives the Republican party – really unhealthy views of sex combined with zero ability at humor.
Degrading women, birth control/abortion/rape, big guns, etc. are the only way the conservative male can feel masculine. His masculinity isn’t self-defined – it’s a tiny thing that can only exist by attempting to lessen others. This is just the latest conservative fantasy of masculine power.
Degrading women, birth control/abortion/rape, big guns, etc. are the only way the conservative male can feel masculine.
Apparently this video was a co-ed effort.
yeah, let’s not forget the women in this video made the choice to be in it. What’s worse…. the lost-cause junkie (GOP men) or the enablers? (these idiots)
yay for rule 34 and another apparent 4chan geek.
I’ll never understand self-loathing Republican women. No wonder they were against the VAWA – they accept this behavior as normal and necessary.
The story says that 2 female interns were chosen. Not sure if they agreed with the video or they couldn’t refuse for fear of their jobs.
I actually think that sentiment is a little sexist. To suggest that the only reason 2 women would agree to be in this video is some man held getting fired over their heads, makes it sound like they arent capable of being horrible people just like the men who possibly wrote the video.
Also to explain their wretchedness as ‘self loathing”. I bet they dislike you and your (any my) philosophies on gender roles. Until i see something solid to suggest they weren’t willing and enthusiastic participants, I refuse to see them as victims. Not only does that let them off without the blame and shaming due to them, but it trivializes REAL victims of exploitation.
I mean, seriously…. “Put on these costumes and act out beastiality, or your fired”……. the money they would win from that lawsuit would let them retire. (any thhey would deserve every penny)
” Not sure if they agreed with the video or they couldn’t refuse for fear of their jobs.”
Right. Because they feared refusing to be filmed dressed as a panda having sex with Hillary Clinton might be detrimental to their careers.
Although if you are planning for a career in wingnut welfare, it might be a proud resume item.
There are only two people on this thread sure of these two interns motivation.
The guys should have done it in drag. That would have made it even more grotesquely awesome.
Im not sure of anything. I just found it sexist that you tried to defend them by suggesting they were victims. Would you have said the same thing if it had been male interns in drag? If the answer is yes, then I’m wrong. And like I said…. show me proof you are right and they were forced, upon pain of termination, to act out bestiality…. it’s a pretty serious charge.
And why are we even talking about their motives? They are on camera being enthusiastically awful.
Does anyone think that the terrible way in which people like Sarah Palin or Virginia Foxx represent women is because of some nefarious plot by their husbands and dads? (no). it is because they are vile people. (in Palin’s case, it is probably money)
Show me where I only defended them. I quoted the article and said, ” Not sure if they agreed with the video or they couldn’t refuse for fear of their jobs.” The article uses the word “chosen”. Did they volunteer? We don’t know. Did they think this was a brilliant idea or an awful idea. I have no idea, but you guys seem to know.
And I’ve always defended people without power – male or female. To me there was a huge difference between Paterno and the janitor in the Sandusky case. It’s about power.
I haven’t seen the video, have you? Sounds like it when you claim that two people, wearing masks, were “on camera being enthusiastically awful.”
No, so I will retract “enthusiastically” since you cannot see their faces. Maybe they were horrified as they were doing that… in which case its some serious Requiem for a Dream stuff and the people who shot it can and should be charged with a crime, and be forced into personal and professional ruin. (for real)
But that is why I have a hard time thinking that is what happened.
We live in an age where a good, white, rich, republican candidate for present cant even trash talk half the country without it getting out. Dont you think that if they were victims of brutal sexual exploitation THAT would be the story instead of the video itself? Keep in mind, these women also became interns at FreedomWorks. It is no secret what Freedomworks is all about. Every single person in this video deserves the same degree on blame and shame. why is that even up for debate?
I have gone back and reread my comments. I first called out the Conservative mindset which is deeply rooted in patriarchy. I did not call out a single individual in the video. You and puck turned it into a discussion on the female participants.
I then stated that I didn’t understand Republican women’s mentality – still not addressing individuals. But I did respond to your and puck’s comments about the female participants by stating that I didn’t know if the interns were willing or unwilling participants due to the word chosen. How my not knowing that turned into defending those women, I’ll never know. But this line of attack is becoming predictable.
I was responding to the comment about conservative fantasies of masculine power, which I think was where gender got injected into the thread as being behind the video. Maybe the female interns had masculine fantasies – not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Apparently this video was a co-ed effort.
And so was the GOP slut-shaming of Sandra Fluke and the women defending birth control.
And so was the GOP effort to defend Todd Aiken and the other justifiers of rape.
And so was the GOP effort to try to kill gender pay equality.
Pick your misogyny and you’ll find that in the most conservative wing of the GOP that misogyny is a co-ed effort.
Adding — FreedomWorks has alot of women working for them and supporting them. It looks plenty fishy to me that they chose to ask two women on the bottom of the corporate food chain to participate in this stupidity. There’s a woman on the FreedomWorks board named Mary Albaugh — she didn’t get roped into this thing.
“You and puck turned it into a discussion on the female participants.”
Oh yeah? i was the first one to bring up their roles? might wanna check your timestamps. YOU brough up the women in question YOU suggest they might have been forced to mime sex acts on each other. I just disagreed
Let’s review that timestamp…
That’s my first comment (10:24am). No mention of the women there, but then came these two comments:
Who are you claiming was the first to bring up their roles? Six minutes after your comment – specifically mentioning the women – I responded.
Check your own timestamps, because you’re making stuff up.
Conservatives have the weirdest fetishes.
Here’s the actual Mother Jones story: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/panda-hillary-clinton-sex-tape-freedomworks-matt-kibbe-dick-armey (Cassandra’s link goes to an unrelated tpm story.). Corn points out it was probably modeled after a Kubrick scene from a movie I will never see.
Sorry about the link mess up — it is fixed now.