Skip to main content

GOP Strategy: After uttering crazy remarks, blame the media for reporting them!

On his weekly talk radio program, former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce recently made some pretty wild remarks which forced him to resign as Arizona Republican Party's first vice chair this past Sunday.

The main remark which landed him in hot water was this:

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get [female recipients] Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job."

You heard it here first - a male Republican believes in birth-control! ...well, among some other things...

Pearce then tried to defend his comments by telling the Washington Post the following:

"[The comments were] written by someone else. [I] failed to attribute them to the author. This was a mistake. This mistake has been taken by the media and the left and used to hurt our Republican candidates."

Let's attempt to travel inside the make-believe world of Russell Pearce for a moment here. Pearce is appearing to claim that if he had attributed the author of the quotes he read on the air, all would be well. Let's compare the two scenarios.

What Russell Pearce actually said: "You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get [female recipients] Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job."

What Russell Pearce claims he should have said: "This next bit I'm going to say, and which I fully agree with, can be attributed to author such and such of that one book. On that one page in the book, he writes, 'You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get [female recipients] Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.'"

That makes a whale of a difference right there, doesn't it? The criticisms he received in the first scenario wouldn't exist in the second, because the evil, liberal media, whom reported the former, apparently wouldn't report the latter for some strange reason.

With this kind of thinking, expect Mr. Pearce to make the following statements at some point on his radio show, as well as the noted defenses he uses after receiving criticism for them:

Pearce comment: "Women ain't nothin' but b**ches and hos, fo' sho'!"

Pearce defense: "That comment was written by someone else. I failed to attribute it to the crapper or rapper or whatever he is. This was a mistake. This mistaken has been taken by the liberal media and used to hurt our Republican candidates."


Pearce comment: "Them blacks are lazier than corpses!"

Pearce defense: "Look - that comment was written by someone else and I failed to attribute it to the person, whoever he or she or it is. I personally don't know, but know I heard it from somewhere and it wasn't my own mouth, besides a few moments ago. Anyway, this was a mistake, and this mistaken has been taken by the left-wing media and used to hurt our Republican candidates."


Pearce comment: "It's 100% fact - gays are going to hell!"

Pearce defense: "I didn't write that last comment, people. Someone else did, and I failed to attribute it to him. Know who wrote it? God - so yeah, take it up with him, you sinners! That includes the liberal media, who's trying to use this 'mistake' of mine to hurt our Republican candidates."


Perhaps the musician Shaggy wrote his song, "It Wasn't Me," about Russell Pearce.

Pearce: "You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get [female recipients] Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job."

Media: "Say what?"

Pearce: "It wasn't me."

Psst... Yes it was...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/russell-pearce-resigns_n_5822136.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"