Are they even now? Or is this going to come back and bite Scott in his once-publicly-naked butt?
In Tuesday's debate — among Democratic candidates to challenge Senator Brown — Elizabeth Warren said "I didn’t take my clothes off" to pay for school. That was a reference to the fact that Brown posed for a photograph in Cosmo and made money to pay for college. Asked by a radio DJ for a response, Brown said "Thank God."
So... is he allowed a tit-for-tat insult or will this little lapse work wonders getting women voters to turn away from the ultra-handsome politico?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
Nobody became rich without the government!....or sumthin' like that
Was "tit" for "tat" an intentional double entendre? Although I think Scott Brown kept his tat covered.
Good comeback but it still might piss off women. Like it or not there are a lot of double standards out there.
I think the only women who were offended enough not to vote for him wouldn't have voted for him anyway. It's not like women don't go around commenting - often viciously - about other women's appearances.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the ...
Oh wait. Can I say that?
Remember when he was loved and even talked about as presidential?
Heh. She brought it up.
I am sorry that is funny.
Unforced error on Brown's part.
He looks small and petty.
He should have just said, "Well I was trying to come up with new fundraising techniques."
Make the joke about himself and not his opponent.
Especially if it's looks and a woman.
Elizabeth Warren, I don't like the liberal Bitch but she does look good.
Has the democrat party become the party of prudes who get upset about sex or if Herman Cain strays off liberal plantataion?
The shame of a common man responding to a Harvard snob's insults.
Women are equal by decree...but a man daring to mention that a woman is a woman is a vile sexist hate speech.
Ask Larry Summers how the Harvard Church ladies demand everyone dance to the feminist drummers?
LarryK said...
Was "tit" for "tat" an intentional double entendre? Although I think Scott Brown kept his tat covered.
Tat was good, LarryK.
Actually Brown only said "Thank God". Was that just a reference to being able to finance his education? The host made the comment that he was thankful that Warren did not. Seems like a cheap attack on something Brown never said.
It was an effective and appropriate comeback. Warren brought it on herself and I could not agree more with the sentiment. There is a certain type of Thin-Skinned-Dance-Mom-Empowerment-Cow whose prejudice and resentment against men runs so deep that an exchange of insults between consenting adults is automatically considered oppression against the female adult. But TSDMEC's not voting for Brown anyway because she is completely dependent on the government due to having no one else to love her. It's the people who broke away from the Demoplantation last time and didn't vote for Coakley that he has to hold onto. They already know about the Cosmo article and voted for Brown anyway, so that's not really an issue. Are they mature enough to see 2 adults exchanging insults and not automatically blame the man? Do they have a sense of humor? (It's Massachusetts, so ....) We'll see.
Hwe wasn't going to get the lesbian and ugly lib vote anyway. Probably gained some Indie dudes too.
Thank God she didn't have to compromise her values. I'm sure that's what he meant.
When did Democrats decide to become the party of prudes?
If the comeback puts off women, women need to get over their double standard and grow up. They can't logically be upset by the comeback if they weren't similarly upset by Warren's initiating the sexist attack.
If not, then they're just confirming the worst stereotypes of women.
She supports nationalized health care, and wrote the propaganda about medical bankruptcy used in its support.
Clothed or nekkid, a vote for Warren is a vote for a boot on the neck.
But by all means, focus on a the insults thrown by these two pols. It's not like being in the Second Great Depression warrants any special attention.
There are some hanging curveballs people pitch in to you that demand a swing. If everyone though of the joke or wished they had you get a pass. Instant wit is not the same as planned cruelty and most people can distinguish between the two.
Someone, I don't remember who, had a great comeback: Warren said she didn't take her clothes off to pay for school--and she earned every cent!
I liked it—and I was at the debate. As a Republican, live blogging off my iPad. Thank you Steve Jobs.
Regards — Cliff
I love it. He must have been on the Howie Carr show, If he keeps it up I might even contribute. F**k the commie bitch.
OK, this is getting kind of wierd for me now. Whenever I read Elizabeth Warren's name I think of Estella Warren -
http://www.celebritiesheight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Estella-Warren.jpg
And now, this talk about taking clothes off is really messing with my head.
So, strangely, even though I'm a conservative, I want to vote for her. And, I don't even live in MA.
If this does him in there really is no hope. Seriously, Warren's put down was lame. He made a joke about it. But what can I tell you, it is Massachusetts and they love to have themselves a witch trial every now and again.
She's a leftwing socialist bitch who is out to destroy the nation with her stupidity, arrogance and ignorance. Say whatever you want, Scott.
I have never noticed Elizabeth Warren's tits.
Does she even have tits?
Tits.
Women need to put their tits out there for the public to view.
Tits.
She set herself up for that one.
Once again the Lefty double standard shines through.
SMGalbraith said...
Unforced error on Brown's part.
He looks small and petty.
Like Hell.
She wanted to pick a fight and she got it right back in her teeth.
If she can't take it (and I've yet to see a Lefty that could), she should find another line of work.
Like maybe administering Gunrunner.
I love that feminism's most lasting effect on society is reintroducing the mores of Victoria England.
How did she pay for her education? Did she earn the money herself or was she supported by relatives or by scholarship? And does she not value education enough that she would, as a last resort, take her clothes off for tuition? What a bitch. My money is on massive cellulite.
C'mon. That's funny stuff. Of course, when Corzine made fun of Christie's weight, I was furious.
You see, I liked Christie. I hope you appreciate the subtlety of my newfound appreciation of political corporeal putdowns.
Scott Brown wasn't even the first, back in 1982! The "first" centerfold goes to Burt Reynolds.
Plus, the guys are so demure! If that was a naked centerfold in Playboy, you'd see all the way up to "Paris, France."
While in this "duel" ... Elizabeth Warren is the butt hole.
She's got nothing on Scott Brown!
And,f she gets desperate, she can begin carrying one of those "shame" posters around her neck.
"Thank God!" OMFG, he's a THEOCRAT!
@ madAsHell: I think it was "nobody became a bitch without the government's help."
"Scott Brown wasn't even the first, back in 1982! The "first" centerfold goes to Burt Reynolds."
And what about Joe Namath, with the pantyhose? Remember? I know you do!
Why isn't anyone talking about the real problem: taking the Lord's name in vain?
Well, it's kinda funny.
And it can't be used against him without putting his quote in the larger context of her attack.
So... I think he's fine.
Good comeback but it still might piss off women. Like it or not there are a lot of double standards out there.
I don't know. I loved it. Then again, I was born and raised in Wisconsin...not Massachusetts.
'Why isn't anyone talking about the real problem:"
1) How do you know he was being insincere about his thanks.
2) that's not his name, that's his title.
3) using it in an aside isn't really the key point to the prohibition anyhow. Those Westboro Baptists are showing how vain use really works.
4) You're very attentive to religion and verses recently! You've always been a little so, but it's a regular theme nowadays
Oh the Political Correct Police and the Shrew Sheriff's posse will be out in full force.
Women can say anything the want about men. Men can STFU or else.
@Althouse- Did you meant taking vanity in the Lord's name?
Saying "Thank God" is typically not taking the Lord's name in vain (although he used it in the context of a joke so it is a close call).
Blaming the Lord when you miss a putt playing golf...that is taking the Lord's name in vain. Becuase God does not like being blamed because you missed a putt.
LOL. He's allowed that insult.
How ironic, the Democrat playing the prude card. Gay marriage OK, posing for Cosmo for college money bad. Gimme a break.
Direct. Pithy. Funny.
Florence King once complained that Americans don't like wit. Wit is associated with words like rapier. Americans prefer their humor broad.
Scott Brown's going to lose some votes if he keeps being witty. But every vote will be worth it.
@Paddy I think I've consistently attended to religious theme throughout all the years of this blog. But if you detect an uptick, I find that interesting.
Hmmm.... let's see. Unattractive (or so someone says) versus Whore. Which is it worse to be?
Well, Republicans don't think gluttonous obesity should besmirch Chris Christie's credentials, so I don't see how calling someone unattractive wins. Dems wouldn't be shallow enough to go there anyway.
But being a whore and doing something just for money [especially when someone's not starving] hasn't yet (?) been made a redeemable lifestyle choice.
So I think that when you add it all up, the fact that Boring Brown was a whore looks worse than his intimation that his opponent doesn't look good naked.
For the record, Boring Brown's assessment is subjective and a cheap comeback. And even so, attractiveness/unattractiveness says less about someone's character than the fact that they're a whore.
Advantage: Warren.
I think Brown missed an opportunity to champion transparency in government.
Ann Althouse said...
Why isn't anyone talking about the real problem: taking the Lord's name in vain?
For me personally, as I thought I made clear, it's because I am too busy thinking about Estella Warren. Duh.
Taking the Lord's name in vain must be one of those mistranslated rules.
It never made any sense.
Either women and men are equal in workplace (which includes political office, surely) or they are not. Are women ashamed of this special pleading (I'll clobber you to my heart's content, but don't you dare hit back, you beast!) or do they flutter their Chantilly lace fans like abashed Southern belles with the vapours when its in their interest?
Brown should simply ask which offers she declined.
she brought it up
it's a legal principle, or something
You've definitely covered religious themes over the years, that's one of the things I've appreciated about this blog and your posts.
But there sure does seem to be an uptick in you making connections with issues and Scripture verses.
If I had to come up with a pattern, I'd say you're especially attuned these days to religious rhetoric and hypocrisy/consistency of candidates.
"Florence King once complained that Americans don't like wit. Wit is associated with words like rapier. Americans prefer their humor broad.
"Scott Brown's going to lose some votes if he keeps being witty."
I guess you prove Ms. King's point, as, whether one is amused by it or not, Brown's response hardly rises to the level of wit.
Lady Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband I would flavour your coffee with poison"
Churchill: "Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it"
The Churchill anecdote should be every single Republican's response to this, if asked about it. With followup questions getting a "what I said covers it."
If Christie ran against some hot woman who had posed for Playboy to pay for college and he made a comment about how he never had to pose nude. The media would (rightly)portray Christie as a grade-one asshole. If the lady candidate made a spunky comeback like, "well, who would want to see that tub-o-lard un-upholstered from his bespoke suits"? She would be an immediate media darling.
Obviously.
Followed by a quick "if someone takes a cheap shot, don't just take it."
I expect some of my in-laws who reside in various Boston metro suburbs might think that was pretty funny.
Men should be chivalrous up to, but never further, the point where a lady starts to take advantage of his chivalry with uncouth manners to which a gentlemen would not, in her mind, dare counter.
Are aging women sensitive about their looks? Based on the comments by women here, it appears so. OTOH young women may be sensitive about certain aspects of their looks, but they know that they are more attractive than their aging sisters. Advantage, Brown.
:)
Perfect come back, Two words. Everyone knows he was referring to the world being spared from seeing her naked bod - but that is not what he said. Warren goes on, he can mock her outrage and say that he was just happy she got to Harvard without having to work part-time at any job she looked down on..like the ones most Mass voters outside Harvard lawyer elitist circles have to do..
first off, if any woman makes such a slam, she (or her advocates) should expect reaction in kind. So no matter how disappointed I am that Brown has been more blue dog than Republican, his reaction was spot on.
btw Why isn't anyone talking about the real problem: taking the Lord's name in vain? That commandment has nothing to do with cursing ... it is about doing evil/sinful behavior in God's name thereby bringing God into disrepute. The accurate translation from Hebrew is "Do not carry the name of the Lord thy God in vain for God will not hold guiltless whoever carries His name in vain."
So is anyone outraged at his remark? Why? (I mean real outrage, not ginned-up phony political outrage).
If my daughter shows her skin to pay for college, I don't think I'll have a problem with it. I say that as a hypothetical. If it ever becomes a reality (she's having trouble finding a job), I may amend my statement.
So was Elizabeth Warren a two bagger during her college days?
So is anyone outraged at his remark? Why? (I mean real outrage, not ginned-up phony political outrage).
That's what this is, from start to finish. Phoney outrage. I seriously doubt this will hurt brown, and if anyone looks small it's Warren for taking it to a personal level.
In my opinion, Warren is really really ugly on the inside but she is not bad looking on the outside. Her ugly inside will cost her a lot of votes.
Brown is going to lose anyway. He's proven himself way too Morning Joe for any caring conservative in Massachusetts. The Left is fired up right now and will get out the base to support their all-your-factories-belong-to-us Marxist darling.
@Robert Cook. Repartee. One of the synonyms of wit. Look it up.
Sure, we're not talking Voltaire on the Charles, but Brown's quip is still funnier and more pointed than Ms. Warren's sanctimonious taunt.
"Name something a burgler would not want to see while breaking into a house."
Make sure to watch the reaction of the other contestant @0:15, for how people might view Brown's quip.
(And, yes, I know Warren would have been college age at the time.)
The President of the United States is a St*^&%^)( Cl(&(*&(^&^^ of a )(&(&))(*&& %*%&&T*%(*.
Senator who?
Townshend?
In other than jest, Brown should win against a weak opponent in Warren yet the media shall be able to present a believable case that the Tea Party is weak because the incumbent won "without Tea Party support."
Believable in MA anyway.
Who cares? That state voted for that fool Ted Kennedy & John Kerry for the last 50 years. Obviously their standards aren't high.
sane_voter said...
So was Elizabeth Warren a two bagger during her college days?
Nah, a three bagger. one for me, one for her, and one on the dog to keep him from getting terrified.
After consideration, along with a Minnesota Fats (per the Jackie) bathroom face wash, I'm prepared to defend:
Any random illegal alien is better for American than Mark Steyn.
In my theory.
I declare: Up from Liberalism is not akin to After America for any American.
http://www.amazon.com/Up-Liberalism-William-Buckley-Jr/dp/0812829697
The full quote is "I didn’t take my clothes off, I borrowed ..."
I think that Warren is plain dim to play prim and flaunt borrowing money as a virture - for would not everybody at the moment prefer a representative who had wits to use whatever he/she got to avoid borrowing money (and Brown did nothing indicent), rather than simebody who borrowed it. Isn't overspending and borrowing responsible for the mess we are in?
I knew she had tits but I didn't know he had tats.
Even Mary Katherine Hamm took offense.
But, really, is Elizabeth Warren a prude? Does she think it's immoral to get paid for posing naked? Or does she believe in freedom of expression.
Yeah, Nora, we're buying that.
It's a fairly funny putdown, but putdowns don't win votes. He's by far the better looking candidate, but for just that reason he should act like looks are secondary in this important contest. Tolerant and, perhaps, a little saddened he should refuse to speculate on why the lady made such embittered remarks. Let the voters fill in the blanks and think up the putdowns.
She brought it up.
A simple rule of life is; don't make it personal if you don't want it made personal.
I think that Cedarford's analogy to Christie is spot on. And I would hope that Christie would know enough to know he ought not "go there".
It may be that Warren is depending on chivalry, perhaps even without realizing that she's doing so. Once upon a time in the "bad old days" a lady would never ever have even alluded to a naked man in public. That's the other half of that chivalry equation. In other words...
She brought it up.
A simple rule of life is; don't make it personal if you don't want it made personal.
Yes. It could be called the Apfelkuchen Rule.
Synova said...
She brought it up.
The question was loaded, so the journo brought it up. I'm sure it was preset, judging by the answer. So Warren deserved reply in a kind, i.e a putdown.
Ann Althouse said...
Why isn't anyone talking about the real problem: taking the Lord's name in vain?
I don't consider someone saying "Thank God" to be taking the Lord's name in vain.
You seem to have a hard time with anyone who says the word "God".
Warren didn't bring it up. The question alluded to Scott Brown taking his clothes off and asked her how she paid for college. She said she kept her clothes on and borrowed money. Not sure how that was an insult to Brown. Scott Brown is a dick. Also kind of dumb apparently.
Women hate women. No effect.
The question alluded to Scott Brown taking his clothes off and asked her how she paid for college. She said she kept her clothes on and borrowed money.
If the question only alluded to Scott Brown taking his clothes off, and she made it explicit, then yes - she effectively brought it up.
You're not very bright, AF. Quite probably dumber than Scott Brown, and - lower bar - Elizabeth Warren herself.
It's like asking if we are going to enforce equality or we're going to enforce chivalry.
I think he probably would have gotten more votes with chivalry. People like chivalry.
The problem with "equality" is that Brown is bigger and stronger than she is, and if they get in a fistfight he will beat her up.
Thus chivalry requires you to recognize sex difference and trsat a woman in a kinder and gentler way than you would treat a man.
If feminists don't like chivalry they ought not to complain when it disappears. The hypocrisy is obvious to the rest of us.
But of course feminists don't give a damn about equality. What feminists want to do, always, is empower women.
That commandment has nothing to do with cursing ... it is about doing evil/sinful behavior in God's name thereby bringing God into disrepute.
Yes, exactly! This is clear from the English translation. Vain means vanity. It's a Copmmandment not to use the Lord's name to further your own vain purpose.
She didn’t attack him for posing nude. I doubt that many people really care that he posed nude.
His response was tin-eared. He’s a one-termer.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा