I could be completely wrong but wasn’t Bush on the View at one point?  Maybe not, maybe I’m thinking of the last presidential election when both Obama and McCain were on the View.

I guess now that the election is over, Obama is supposed to drop the pretense of caring about women?

He was on Dr. Phil.

Regardless of whether the President appears on The View:

Have the Boy Scouts apologized for covering up child molestation and squashing and kicking out homosexuals?  I admit I have not researched this, but it’s mostly a rhetorical question anyway.

Nonsense!  We have always been at war with The View!

The nytimes puts the feminist stuff in the style section? I never read that section because I don’t care about fashion. Goddammit.

Yep, a lot of the time serious women’s issues stories are relegated to the Style section.

Let us remember that it was Joy Behar, and she alone, that called out McCain’s campaign-ad lies to his face during a 2008 visit to that program. Can’t be having that, now, can we?

We’re missing the point.  If the president appeared at a Boy Scouts function, he would be criticized for not appearing on The View.  It doesn’t matter what Obama does:  the conservative game plan is to attack and criticize him for anything and everything he does.  Instead of talking about how important The View is or isn’t in our culture, we should attack the game plan itself by exposing it and making it clear that the criticism is without merit because it has nothing to do with what the president does but is simply a game plan being followed without regard to fact or circumstance.

All of the lifestyle sections used to be called “The Women’s Section,” the newspapers’ version of purdah for American women. They never needed to bother their pretty little heads about what was chronicled in Section One. But reading TWS gave them something to do—other than fetching more toast and coffee—while Dad was getting purple over what That Man In The White House was doing.

But I was in DC last week, trying to get around the swarms of khaki-clad paramilitaries infesting that town so that I could visit museums or even to get on the Metro. My feelings towards the BSA abruptly switched from “mildly favorable” to “active hatred.” One almost brained a young woman when he let his full water bottle fall from the top of an escalator in Union Station. No one owned up to it—so much for Scout character building. Thus I understand why Obama might give them a wide berth.

DBK, apparently a lot of people on the otherside also plan to attack Obama no matter what he does. I really do not understand why so many people are incredibly demoralized about President Obama and the Democratic Party at this point. They are trying to do their best under some fairly hard circumstances, some of which are admitedly self-inflicted, and have managed to deliver more than a few substantial reforms. Financial reform, the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act, Lilly Ledbetter, investmnet in public works, and a lawsuit against the racist Arizona law. For some reason, many people seem depressed that we aren’t Sweden yet and plan to set the election out.

  For every person who views the Affordable Care Act as a corporate sell out, there is another person who thinks its “ZOMG government take over of healthcare”. Same goes for everything else accomplished including financial reform. I’m frustrated with Obama’s critics on both sides but more on the Left. Remember what antipathy got us last time on the left.

I dunno, DBK.  I think that there is a game plan of criticizing virtually every move Obama makes, but the criticism generally does conform to wingnutty talking points.  So they DO consciously pick and choose those trivialities that are relevant to their ideology. 

I am not home enough to watch the view, but I have thoroughly enjoyed it on those occasions when I have been home.  It includes substantive political discussion.  It just happens the panelists are all women, and the style is conversational.

Thank you SO much Amanda.  I was irritated deeply by the criticism of “The View” which is certainly no less inane than any other morning fare.  The criticism by Serious White Men just fucked my goat in the ass.

Really?  So he should sit around with those three twits on Fox and Friends (now that is a SERIOUS sounding morning show).  Or perhaps get sandwiched in between an exercise demonstration and a cooking segment on Today or Good Morning America?  Yes, because that is serious.  Maybe he should even go on Dr. Phil, ala George W. Bush (because Phil is a MAN and therefore Infinitely Serious).

Stoopid girls and their stoopid girlie questions.  What if one of them is on her period?  Huh?  What then?????!!!!!!!111!!!

Also, the View gave McCain a surprise kick in his ass - an act of treachery that will NEVER EVER be forgiven.

In fall 2008, Paula Deen had a live show, on which she invited Michelle Obama (the only one who accepted), Cindy McCain, Jill Biden, and ... Sara Palin. I realize Joe Biden is a more serious person than Sara Palin, but Jill Biden is a more serious person than Sara Palin; the point is that the GOP VP candidate does not correspond to the spouse of the Democratic VP candidate. It’s clear enough what Deen thought Palin’s role on the ticket was.

That was relevant in my head when I started typing it.

The nytimes puts the feminist stuff in the style section? I never read that section because I don’t care about fashion. Goddammit.
Comment 5—pharmakos

The Times uses the Style section for anything that doesn’t have its own section already that they don’t think will particularly interest the Very Serious People (i.e., men) and political and business leaders they like to think read their little newspaper.

I feel the same way, Lee. Well said.

Obama was on The Colbert Report for chrissake and nobody complained.  Why?  Because it was when Colbert was in Iraq entertaining The Troops.  Can’t do anything criticizing The Troops now, can we?

If they want to express concern about compromising the dignity of the presidency, what about the tradition of having the President throw out the first pitch of baseball season?  Most of the time the president looks pretty lame out there.  IIRC George Bush The Elder actually dropped his pitch about two-thirds of the way to the plate one year.  So much for demonstrating his Manly Everyman Good Ol Boy qualities.

Hershele:

That is an interesting sort of point. I suppose Todd would not have been an interesting guest on the show—he doesn’t strike me as having much of a personality—but in a way it was almost appropriate given the image Palin was trying to create for herself. Whether this is good or bad on Paula’s part I leave as an exercise.

Also, the View gave McCain a surprise kick in his ass - an act of treachery that will NEVER EVER be forgiven.

That’s exactly what this is about.  What - you think Republican enemies lists died with Nixon? 

The hosts of The View straight-up called McCain a liar, a hypocrite and (almost) a racist to his face.  It was a key moment in the campaign, exposing McCain as the spineless panderer that he is, rather than the bold independent spirit he wanted voters to believe he was.  It totally killed the meme that Sarah Palin would help him with the women’s vote.  In short, it was extremely damaging stuff, just 6 weeks before the election.  The GOP elephant will never forget, never forgive.

DBK, I don’t know if I think it’s wise to treat the opposition like they’re a bunch of mindless trolls.  On the contrary, they’re extremely effective at playing off certain unspoken social beliefs and prejudices.  Ignoring the unspoken beliefs and prejudices to paint them as mindless tantrum throwers won’t be as effective, because it’s simply not the reality.

I wouldn’t treat them as “mindless trolls”, though I can see how you might take what I wrote as suggesting that.  I guess, if you whittle what I am saying down, I am suggesting that we frame the discussion in a way that is more accurate.  If you let the conservatives throw these mindless tantrums, and that is what they are, and you respond with the usual clever arguments, they continue to control the framework.  This is the way they’ve been running the discussion for some time.

If, on the other hand, you force them to step back from the attacks and defend the very notion of the attacks themselves, then you control the framework and they are on the defensive.  The discussion right now is defensive.  “Well The View is relevant and Bush went on this show or that one and what’s wrong with The View anyway and you people just don’t respect women.”  How about we frame things this way:  “You don’t give a rat’s ass about The View.  This is just more of the same stunt you’ve been pulling since the beginning of Obama’s presidency.  When he continues a Bush policy, you attack it.  When he changes a policy, you attack it.  If he talks to Joe Blow, you attack him for not talking to Jim Jay.  If he talks to Jane Doe you attack him for not talking to little Billy Scoutyboy.  There’s a pattern here and it has nothing to do with The View.”

Make them own up to what they are doing or defend it and, at the same time, expose it for the independents out there (who probably see through it already anyway, but I’m talking about framing the discussion, not what is or isn’t understood at its core).

The new female misogynists have what I call “Lady Macbeth Syndrome.”

“I’m a worthy woman because I aspire to think like a man, even though I can never do all the wonderful things they can.”

ttintagel @ 21:
They want to pee standing up?

DBK—you’re right, though of course it’s valuable to our discussions to highlight the extremely misogynistic nature of this particular batch of attacks.

I honestly can’t think of a better example of the conservative attitudes towards women than anger that the President appears to believe that adult women are more adult than minor children who happen to be male.

Well, there’s your problem right there.  Those children don’t just “happen to be male”.  Their maleness is all important.  They are MALES who just happen to be children.

Childhood will end, and then they will be adult males, the most important creatures on the planet.

Women are female, and therefore not worth shit no matter what their age.

“Minor children who happen to be male”!  As if being male just happens!  It’s a gift from God and grants Divine Rights.

Being female, you can’t possibly understand.  But at least you could show a little respect.

Louis CK understands.

Have the Boy Scouts apologized for covering up child molestation and squashing and kicking out homosexuals?

Au contraire, they use the first to justify the second.

The feminist analysis of this is spot-on, but let’s not forget the racist paranoia built into this story. The housewife thing is not inconsequential: “There’s a black man in your home right now, talking to your wife! He may seduce her with his rascally ways! And not just any black man, the leader of the black people!”

And of course, having McCain give a monologue on late-night comedy doesn’t trivialize the office at all. Nope.

helen w.: Believe it or not, there is a product designed to allow women to do that.

I fear that reinforces the notion that it’s okay to suggest women automatically trivialize things. On the contrary, I prefer showing why their attacks are effective, while assuming an audience is smart enough to grasp why they attack.  I don’t think ther’s any doubt that this is about trolling Obama, and if there is, that implication is made clear in my language about the latest feigned outrage.

He was on Dr. Phil.

Shrub also appeared on Oprah about a month and a half before the 2000 election while he was still the Governor of Texas.  He was on Letterman as well around the same time.

Obama was on The Colbert Report for chrissake and nobody complained.  Why?  Because it was when Colbert was in Iraq entertaining The Troops.  Can’t do anything criticizing The Troops now, can we?

That was terrific, although it should be noted that the video of President Obama ordering General Odierno to shave Colbert’s head was pre-recorded… Odierno and Colbert had to be perfect with timing their responses, or it would have become apparent that Obama wasn’t actually on a live videoconference from the White House.

If they want to express concern about compromising the dignity of the presidency, what about the tradition of having the President throw out the first pitch of baseball season?  Most of the time the president looks pretty lame out there.  IIRC George Bush The Elder actually dropped his pitch about two-thirds of the way to the plate one year.  So much for demonstrating his Manly Everyman Good Ol Boy qualities.

The first time Obama threw out a first pitch as president was a year ago at the MLB All-Star Game in St. Louis, and the best the wingnuts on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch message boards could come up with was, “OMG, he throws like a girl!  Look at those mom jeans he’s wearing!”  It wasn’t a great pitch, but it made its way into Albert Pujols’ glove at home plate, and Obama did actually throw it from the mound, which many first pitch honorees don’t do.  They also took offense to the fact that he wore a Chicago White Sox jacket inside Busch Stadium.

On Opening Day 2004, President Bush was invited by the Cardinals’ principal owner Bill DeWitt (huge GOP donor) to throw out the first pitch at the old Busch Stadium, and it was actually a pretty good toss.  I suppose that in wingnut world, the fact that Bush threw a better first pitch in St. Louis than Obama is proof positive that Bush was clearly the better POTUS.  Or something.

Uh, I don’t get it - is Obama a girly-man not fit for the Presidenting, or is he a big black Chicago Thug forcing his turgid throbbing agenda down the helpless throat of America?

It’s hard to keep track at times.

OK.

I got that about it being feigned outrage.  Again, I’m just talking about how we frame the response and take control of the argument.

Maybe the moms of the Scouts (and the Dads, too) are upset because the President of the United States is the Honorary Head of the Boy Scouts of America.  Maybe they are upset because this year marks the 100th anniversary of the BSA, and their Jamboree only comes around every 4 or 5 years.

And perhaps, just perhaps, they are upset because The View is on 5 days a week, all year long (yes, I realize that they go into reruns at some point), so they figure Mr. Obama could go do a taping just about ANY time that he wants to.  The Jamboree is a BIG deal to Scouts all across the country, and it doesn’t happen every day.

Maybe they think that his timing is inappropriate.  It certainly appears to be a deliberate snub - after all, the Jamboree site is only 100 miles from the White House.  Some of the Scouts’ moms probably voted for Mr. Obama - they might not be willing to do that next time around, especially since he wasn’t willing to share a special day with some really neat kids and their families.  Most moms have VERY long memories…..

And not catering to what will likely be no more than 100K Jamboree attendees (most of them ineligible to vote) over the millions of viewers of The View is certainly worth getting upset about.  Especially when the security costs for the former (smaller) group would be astronomically higher than for the latter (much larger) group.

Honestly, the President turns down far more speaking requests than he accepts, and does actually have a job to do (so he isn’t available to go on The View just any old time).

If Scout moms voted for Obama in 2008, but are unwilling to do so in 2012 because he didn’t come to their kid’s party, then they probably wouldn’t have voted for him in 2012 for some other ridiculous reason (like violating the “original” thirteenth amendment).

Also, watching The View is essentially free, while attending the Jamboree costs money.

“Some of the Scouts’ moms probably voted for Obama - they might not be willing to do that next time around…” - kamikazesquirrel

The dads, on the other hand, really couldn’t care less about their offspring as they are not Grizzly Bears With VERY Long Memories (tm), so they will continue to vote according to their actual dudely political views. Oh oops, you said “(and the Dads (sic), too)” up there in that first paragraph, so it’s not sexist. Never mind.

“It certainly appears to be a deliberate snub - after all, the Jamboree site is only 100 miles from the White House.”

Ok, seriously, this cracks me up more than anything else.

ONLY 100!!! MILES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE PEOPLES!!!!

That being said, I see kamikazesquirrel’s point (except for the part about voting, obviously). BUT - the actual reaction from the Right is telling, and just ignoring that because some Boy Scouts might have a legitimate reason to feel disappointed would be foolish. It is not the young males of America Amanda is criticizing.

Boy Scouts were knocking on doors in my community in 2008 to promote Prop 102 (Arizona’s version of Prop 8).  The BSA has been taken over by the LDS Church.

Ok, seriously, this cracks me up more than anything else.

ONLY 100!!! MILES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE PEOPLES!!!!

Not going = snub.

Going by motorcade = intruding on middle America for political photo opportunity

Going by helicopter = wasting tax-payer dollars.

Obama - the all singing all dancing crap of the right-wing media world.

Midterm elections are in a couple of months.  The Obama Administration has some of its lowest approval ratings and it looks like the Democratic Congressional majority could be in a precarious position.

If you’re Obama:

a) do you go to an event hosted by an organization whose reputation has taken a beating because of their overtly discriminatory practices and whose primary audience would be non-voters and their parents (who probably didn’t and wouldn’t vote for Obama or any Democrat)? 

b) Or do you go on one of the highest rated morning shows whose primary audience is women between 18-49, many of whom not only voted for Obama but will likely vote Democrat in the upcoming elections?

Hmmm…tricky.

Wow, so the perpetually outraged are, um, outraged? 

Whatever.  I defy anyone to watch Morning Schmo and take a good listen to that gaggle of idiots, and then explain to me how that’s a serious show and The View isn’t.  It’s the same fucking show except one has a lot of penises.  I don’t take either show seriously.  I did DVR THe View today, for the first time ever.  Haven’t seen it yet but I’m guessing President Obama managed to hold his own against Lizzie?  hahhaha

Most moms have VERY long memories…..

Moms were excluded from the hordes of khaki-clad little jagoffs who infested DC last week. Only penis possessors—aging, potgutted “role models” were included. Therefore I’d bet anything that moms would gravitate to anything that pissed off the XY people.

My personal approval rating for Obama would have gone down exponentially if he HAD attended the Jamboree. Way to support an organization that is virulently anti-gay, anti-atheist, and yet still demands to get taxpayer support. If the KKK had made Bush Jr. the “honorary head” of their organization, would he have been obligated to attend a Klan rally? Oh wait, my oldest daughter was just in DC attending a convention for the youth section of a group she is involved with in the community, aiming to assist teens and adults with mental health issues and community acceptance (a lot of G/L people in this group, as well as persons with mental illnesses and varying disabilities). OBAMA DIDN’T ATTEND!!11!1 It has to be a snub!!11!

Some of the Scouts’ moms probably voted for Mr. Obama - they might not be willing to do that next time around, especially since he wasn’t willing to share a special day with some really neat kids and their families.  Most moms have VERY long memories…..

If they actually had really long memories, they’d remember that Ronald Reagan suggested that ketchup was a vegetable and made it much harder for kids to go to college by practically eliminating Pell Grants and taxing scholarship stipends, that Bush Sr. sent boys to war over a saber-rattling dictator at a time when the American economy was tanking and showed no interest in saving the economy, that Bill Clinton’s administration opened up the Internet to public use and thus spurred on the dot-com boom, the information economy, and a gigantic boost to the economy, which provided huge dividends for everyone but *particularly* benefited boys and young men, and that Bush Jr. took the dividends of that boom and pissed them down a toilet, gave all the money to his powerful cronies, and sent boys (and girls) to war over a saber-rattling dictator who’d had not one single thing to do with the attack on America, without adequate body armor, without letting them leave once their term was up, and stripped America of its readiness to handle natural disasters by sending our National Guard to that war.

Anyone with really long memories would vote for the Democrat, every single time, because every Republican since (and including) Reagan has screwed over children, women, poor people, middle class people, our prestige in the world, and our military. Moms who refused to vote for Obama because he skipped out on their sons’ Jamboree to go appear on the View instead either don’t have long memories at all, or they do, but they’re sociopathically narcissistic and think voting is a popularity contest that has nothing to do with any real impact on their boys’ lives.

I have two sons. Voting for any member of the party that sent us to an elective war of aggression, implemented stop-loss policies to prevent people whose term of service was up from leaving, dragged in middle-aged men whose term of service had long ended, and SENT THE NATIONAL GUARD TO WAR IN SUCH NUMBERS THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT FOR AMERICAN NATURAL DISASTERS is a crime of violence against boys and young men, who make up the bulk of the military, and risks the re-implementation of the draft, which is to men what rape culture is to women (at any point, you could be randomly forced into an organization that strips you of your human rights and gives you no sovereignty over your own body, where you will be forced to kill and may very well die or be horribly injured! Have a nice day). If you have sons, it is an act of phenomenal irresponsibility bordering on child abuse to vote for Republican presidential candidates, unless you’re so stupid you don’t remember a single damn thing George W. Bush did.

I’m not a men’s rights activist, because that’s code for being anti-feminist, but I do believe that patriarchy hurts men too, and I’ve noticed that in America, electing a Republican president is pretty much guaranteed to disproportionately harm boys and young men. (It disproportionately harms almost all women, too.) The only people who benefit under Republicans are wealthy older men and their wealthy older wives who aren’t reproducing anymore (or who could afford to fly to another country for an abortion if needed). Democrats often kind of suck, and I disagree with many, many things Obama has done, but in a presidential election, a vote cast for anyone but the Democrat works out to be a vote cast for the Republican, and Republicans in power = young men die.

Alara…YES!

I think there’s even more to this—the Boy Scouts are still seen, I think, by a lot of people as one of those sacrosanct American institutions, and people don’t take daytime TV very seriously because it’s seen as being targeted at, well, women and lazy people. To most people, at least, it’s like comparing a Mack truck with a Vespa. The fact that it’s The View, a show produced by and largely targeted at women, probably does make a lot men think it’s even more frivolous. In other words, it’s classism on top of patriarchy, which IMHO makes it even more toxic than it looks at first glance.

Alara wins the internet. For a good long time.

in a presidential election, a vote cast for anyone but the Democrat works out to be a vote cast for the Republican

Not necessarily.