Dems Refuse To Release Tape Of Hatefest

[ruthie]

I gathered, after hearing a statement released from Whoopi's publicist...she didn't really care about it. She said she will never stop expressing her opinions, etc.

on another note, after tapes of the fundraiser were requested by the repub's in a letter to Mary Beth Cahill, and denied, she responded to their (republican) letter with this letter

Washington, DC – Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill today sent the following letter to Bush Cheney ’04 Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman in response to a letter Mehlman sent yesterday:


July 13, 2004
Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager
BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc.




Dear Ken:


Over the past several months, allies of the President have questioned John Kerry’s patriotism while your staff has criticized his service in Vietnam. Republicans and their allies have gone so far as to launch attacks against his wife and your campaign has run $80 million in negative ads that have been called baseless, misleading and unfair by several independent observers.

Considering that the President has failed to even come close to keeping his promise to change the tone in Washington, we find your outrage over and paparazzi-like obsession with a fund-raising event to be misplaced. The fact is that the nation has a greater interest in seeing several documents made public relating to the President’s performance in office and personal veracity that the White House has steadfastly refused to release. As such, we will not consider your request until the Bush campaign and White House make public the documents/materials listed below:


● Military records: Any copies of the President’s military records that would actually prove he fulfilled the terms of his military service. For that matter, it would be comforting to the American people if the campaign or the White House could produce more than just a single person to verify that the President was in Alabama when said he was there. Many Americans find it odd that only one person out of an entire squadron can recall seeing Mr. Bush.


● Halliburton: All correspondence between the Defense Department and the White House regarding the no-bid contracts that have gone to the Vice-President’s former company. Some material has already been made public. Why not take a campaign issue off the table by making all of these materials public so the voters can see how Halliburton has benefited from Mr. Cheney serving as Vice-President?


● The Cheney Energy Task Force: For an Administration that claims to hate lawsuits, it’s ironic that the Bush White House is taking up the Courts’ time to keep the fact that Ken Lay and Enron wrote its energy policy in secret behind closed doors. Please release the documents so that the country can learn what lobbyists and special interests wrote the White House energy policy.


● Medicare Bill: Please release all White House correspondence between the pharmaceutical industry and the Administration regarding the Medicare Bill, which gave billions to some of the President’s biggest donors. In addition, please provide all written materials that directed the Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress about the actual cost of the bill.


● Prison Abuse Documents: A few weeks ago, the White House released a selected number of documents regarding the White House’s involvement in laying the legal foundation for the interrogation methods that were used in Iraq. Please release the remaining documents.


We also wanted to wish you a happy anniversary. As we are sure you and the attorneys representing the President, Vice-President and other White House officials are aware, today marks one year since Administration sources leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to Bob Novak in an effort to retaliate against a critic of the Administration.


In light of the fact that the Administration began gutting the laws protecting the nation’s forests yesterday, we hope you will accept the paper on which this letter is written as an anniversary gift. (The one year anniversary is known as the “paper anniversary.”)


Sincerely,




Mary Beth Cahill

Campaign Manager

I thought that was a pretty good response. Don't hold your breath.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 July 2004 - 18:28

2. I feel that the particular reason for the pressure from the coservative groups is anti free speech and discriminatory.

While I'm sure Conservative groups made their displeasure known, I think she was dropped before the true depths of any reaction were known.

In fact, I wonder if the folks at Slim-Fast made their decision blind, or if they were allowed to "go to the videotape"?

In any case, vid (welcome back, BTW)-

Given that Conservatives (individually or in groups) have the same rights as Ms. Goldberg, how do you arrive at the conclusion their expression of outrage is in any way "anti-free-speech" or "discriminatory"?

Is it discriminatory because she is black?

Is it "anti-free-speech" because there was a consequence to the exercise of her rights?

Does Slim-Fast (as a corporate entity) have the right to express displeasure with Ms. Goldberg?

Should the speech rights of any group or individual have been suppressed because they expressed outrage at remarks uttered by a celebrity?

Is Ms. Goldberg's right to free speech somehow superior (as, say, a king is to a queen, in a deck of cards) to anyone else's, merely due to the fact she had a microphone and a full complement of media on hand to record her gracious expression of opinion?

Your thoughts, please.

[SuperJude™]

I would like to meet somebody who bought Slim Fast cause Whoopie Golberg did their adds. Heh.

Freedom is being a comediene and expressing yourself as is it firing a person doing your adds because you don't like their message. That is why this country is so awesome, such a mix.

I state (once again) my utter disconnectedness with either party, but......

Negative? Considering by all accounts Bush irl is a decent man who loves his family, I have never seen such negativity towards a president from people of another party, cause more of the media is democrat/liberal than not. The negativity towards Bush has been utterly shocking to me, and I am old enough to remember when Nixon was in power mind you.

Of course it doesn't excuse the Republicans for any negative displays but folks like it or not that is what things have become.

When you all stop downloading Nick Berg and Paris Hilton Videos, when dead bodies on mag covers sell less than those with babies, when we see that emmisions could be the #1 problem facing humanity then maybe the Parties will stop will all the negative adds. We are a negative society presently. What gets me is so many of the liberals are well educated and should know better but like addicts they can't help themselves.

All I mean in these posts is read between the lines, see the good and the bad in all things, cause just being a liberal spewing whatever pseudo-fact you are fed is not the same as being educated, plain and simple.

And no, nobody would expect people at a Dem fundraiser to praise Bush or vice versa, but could you imagine if they did? Dream on Jude...

-SJ™

[lynx]

I can honestly say I won't be buying any SlimFast products from now on.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx@15 July 2004 - 23:45
I can honestly say I won't be buying any SlimFast products from now on.

Me too.

Boycott Sals!!!!

I still there was nothing wrong with the conservatives calling for a boycott of Slim Fast. I would have if I was one.

On the converse, I believe there is nothing wrong me boycotting Slim Fast.

I think the actual right is a non-issue.

Having Whoopi Goldberg as a spokesperson so to speak is like having Bill Maher or even a person like me as a spokesperson.

If I think it's shit I'll tell you it's shit with no higher agenda.

For the most it seems some folks don't behave like good little doggies and go with the flow.
You fuck up and we'll turn on you in a heartbeat.

[vidcc]

as i said i heard the reason was

haven't heard what whoopi said just a short item on the news. Apparently she was dropped after "pressure from conservative groups suggesting they would boycott the products unless she was dropped".

on CNN

The anti free speech..... the groups put presure on slimfast because they didn't like what she said.

Discriminatory... has nothing to do with being black...they chose to take their actions against one person because of her beliefs and her statements and put pressure on a company to dismiss her because of those beliefs and statements.

Discrimination..Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

Given that Conservatives (individually or in groups) have the same rights as Ms. Goldberg

Of course they do have the same rights to free speech, but isn't the idea that one has free speech "without prejudice" so whoopi had the right to say what she did without fear of losing a "gig" which has no connection to her political or any other views. Had she been working for the Bush campaign and made the remarks ( i still don't know what she said) i could accept her termination.

Does Slim-Fast (as a corporate entity) have the right to express displeasure with Ms. Goldberg

yes it does, but from the report i have...CNN... it was decided after the presure was put on by the "conservative groups" (i admit i still don't know which groups but here is a link to the report on the net.CNN )

it would be interesting to see if her contract mentions political activity as an example of "improper conduct" or whatever they used to decide to drop her and if they will be financial compensation for early termination. Perhaps if it was a different celebrity they might have a lawsuit on their hands.

Is Ms. Goldberg's right to free speech somehow superior (as, say, a king is to a queen, in a deck of cards) to anyone else's, merely due to the fact she had a microphone and a full complement of media on hand to record her gracious expression of opinion?

absolutely not.....but at the same time it is not inferior. Just as i disagree with your political liking of Bush Jnr. I in no way think that your beliefs are inferior, rather just opposing.
The ONLY difference with celebrity is that microphone you mentioned does give them an advantage of being heard by more people.


Edit: the GOP also put pressure on slimfast to drop her

[Biggles]

Slim Fast appear to be between the devil and the deep blue sea.

If they do nothing then the Consevatives boycott them, sack Whoopi and the Liberals boycott them.

I guess they must have decided there are more fat Conservatives. :-"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 July 2004 - 23:14

The anti free speech..... the groups put presure on slimfast because they didn't like what she said.

Discriminatory... has nothing to do with being black...they chose to take their actions against one person because of her beliefs and her statements and put pressure on a company to dismiss her because of those beliefs and statements.



Of course they do have the same rights to free speech, but isn't the idea that one has free speech "without prejudice" so whoopi had the right to say what she did without fear of losing a "gig" which has no connection to her political or any other views. Had she been working for the Bush campaign and made the remarks ( i still don't know what she said) i could accept her termination.

Vid-

I'm glad you put this as you did.

First of all, you rightly peg Ms. Goldberg as an individual expressing her views, but then wish to grant her unencumbered leeway to say whatever she likes, insofar as you seem to wish to disqualify any answering expression as discriminatory, or unfair.

I'll assume I've properly deduced your assessment in order to point out that, while what occurred is certainly not a perfect example, it still qualifies as debate.

She tried to make a point, a point that was (in relevent quarters) rejected.

It is as simple as that.

Slim-Fast tumbled to the conclusion that to retain Ms. Goldberg could potentially cause them financial harm, and, out of a well-placed sense of responsibility to it's stockholders, decided to sever with Ms. Goldberg.

How should they have handled this problem?

Should they have admonished their customers and informed them of Whoopi's right to speak, and also of the lack of a connection between her politics and their product?

More succinctly, if you were shopping for a new car, would you buy one from a company who had a spokesman named George?

I doubt it.

Funny thing is, at the end of the day, Whoopi can still say whatever she wants; her rights are intact.

What a country!

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 20:30


First of all, you rightly peg Ms. Goldberg as an individual expressing her views, but then wish to grant her unencumbered leeway to say whatever she likes, insofar as you seem to wish to disqualify any answering expression as discriminatory, or unfair.

.........

Funny thing is, at the end of the day, Whoopi can still say whatever she wants; her rights are intact.

What a country!

I dont follow.

They had every right to disagree, this is not in dispute.

They did not do this however, they decided to threaten boycot of her employer.


This does infringe on her Rights of Free Speech.

The fact that Ms Goldberg doesnt need the money is irrelevant.

If it had been a checkout girl at Wall Mart or a Fat Cat Director of a PLC......it wouldnt matter to me.

Someone was forced out of a job for expressing a political belief... it doesnt matter to me what that belief is; whether "Liberal" or "Conservative"

To say that this "does not infringe on Free Speech" is an astounding belief at best.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 July 2004 - 23:14
...but isn't the idea that one has free speech "without prejudice"...

Even more to the point, this idea of "without prejudice" is not within sniffing distance of the idea.

If you make comments that are controversial or "daring", you stand to be relieved of something, be it a fat slice of income, your entire livelihood, or merely your ignorance.

That's the gamble inherent in free speech, vid: It is not without risk; never has been, and never should be.

This is what is meant when people speak of the "responsible" exercise of rights, and while Whoopi's commentary was daring, it was also costly (to her) and demonstrative of a severe lack of foresight.

None of us should ever (and I do mean ever) speak (or post) without due consideration.

Please forego your urge to argue the point; I myself am oft-times at the mercy of my feelings, and allow them to intrude on my posting here.

But the fact of the matter is (trust me) just as I have outlined here.

You may state your interpretation of events as unfortunate, or extreme, but I assure you-none of it is outside of any moral or legal bounds.