I sort of missed this controversy (Anne’s post yesterday was all I really know on the matter), so there may be more comments I’m unaware of, but I gather the main comment that sent off the entire “Fire Simpson” bit was that social security was “a milk cow with 300 million tits.” From that, I see a bunch of people claiming this was somehow sexist, and I just have to shake my head. Can anyone explain to me how this is any different from the absolutely absurd charge by the McCain/Palin team that when Obama said “putting lipstick on a pig” he was actually making sexist remarks? It’s the same level of absurdity, and the landscape is riddled with op-ed cartoons and remarks about suckling at the government teat. Here’s one:
ZOMG SEXISM! I could post more, but what is the point. Sucking at the government teat is imagery so common and, at this point, blasé, that anyone claiming sexism is just being silly.
Simpson’s crime is not sexism, it is his assault on the concept of social security. Social security recipients are not sucking on the government tit, as they paid into the account their entire lives. It was a contract- you pay in, when you are older and in need, we pay out. The real crime with social security is that millions have paid in, and then those receipts were used to fund tax cuts, wars, tax breaks to oil companies, and on and on and on.
That’s why Simpson should be fired. Not because he is sexist, but because he doesn’t even understand the problem with social security. Hell, that is why the entire commission should be disbanded.
*** Update ***
I should note, I’m responding to the dozen or so emails I’ve received demanding I get on board firing Simpson for his sexism. I have no idea how this has played out on blogs (as I noted at the top of the post), because I’ve been too swamped to read blogs this week.
John S.
Wrong, John.
Simpson was sexist for mocking a woman’s ability to read a chart. It didn’t have anything to do with the “sucking on a tit” metaphor. The key graf:
“I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs.”
As for the rest of your points, you are correct.
Dork
I think Digby implied it was sexist b/c he used the word “tit”. Apparently that’s a bad word amongst the womyn.
Omnes Omnibus
@Dork: Saying “teat” would have made it not sexist?
mistermix
As a former constituent of Crazy Al, I can testify that his tits comment is nothing compared to usual crap that comes babbling out of his gaping piehole.
Paul in KY
Is it surprising that a right wing asshat like Simpson would get in a cheap shot against Social Security? What is surprising (to me) is that he’s been listed as an ‘advisor’ to Pres. Obama.
What the Hell would that withered up old scumbag have to say about anything? That’s what I find unsettling. Having him as an advisor gives him legitimacy to snipe away (IMO).
I wish my President wasn’t so damned ‘bipartisan’ sometimes.
FlipYrWhig
Well, the “tits” remark together with all the other condescension expressed towards the older-women-voters group sort of suggested that he may have been attempting to verbally put the ladies in their place.
But I’m still not worried about the commission.
John S.
I find that preposterous. And if that is the meme du jour, then I have to agree with John.
FlipYrWhig
@Paul in KY: Um, he had to be so damned bipartisan because it was chartered as a bipartisan commission.
BrklynLibrul
Women may hear that comment differently, John. In any event, Dems are right to pounce on this one. We need to make political hay when and where we can.
MikeBoyScout
Thank-you John.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Most of Daily Kos’s screams have to do with Simpson’s trying to end Social Security.
peach flavored shampoo
OT, but scary:
4th Amendment further eviscerated
Pancake
Among the “on and on” that John must be referring to were hundreds of billions of dollars of non-social security payments made to shiftless lazy welfare bums.
Jayackroyd
Echidne agrees with you, John, on your narrow point that cows or pigs as teated mammals is a metaphor that is not itself sexist. But on a larger scale, the email is indeed sexist, rude and dismissive. And filled with falsehoods.
The response to that argument is that Simpson is like that to everyone, but this one is particularly rude and does use sexist tropes to dismiss the argument, accompanied by the usual train of asserted falsehoods.
Obama has not fired him. This can only mean that Obama really wanted Simpson on the Commission, and provides more evidence that the plan is to cut benefits in December, after the election on a “bipartisan” DLC/GOP coalition.
Without ever presenting this to voters…
(Note, btw, that forcing this debate now, before the election, would hold some Dem seats that will be lost without the SS issue. So Obama is apparently putting the DLC/New Dems agenda ahead of the party as a whole.)
inkadu
This is shades of Dr. Laura for me; individual words carry more impact than the actual sentences. Even though the ideas expressed may be more abhorrent than the word itself, all people hear is “tits” or “n…..”.
John S – He most likely is a sexist; your quote, however, is not shitstorm-worthy in the slightest. The real offense was saying tit.
Anyway. Could be worse. He could have compared gov’t to a canine mom and said, “bitch tits.”
aimai
Uh, Digby didn’t find it problematic because of the word “tit” and its really pretty stupid and sexist to insist that she did. Oddly enough, women do know about tits. She found the whole interaction sexist and demeaning because it was: because he described a serious voters group as “pink panthers” told them to “read a chart” and not “talk into the vapors” (a little mental confusion there, I think he meant “have the vapors”) and a few other choice insults. He isn’t *just* a sexist, of course, because he said almost the same thing to a male Social Security Expert who he also, condescended to during some hearings.
But of course Simpson should go–for all the reasons others like Digby have laid out–he doesn’t understand that SS isn’t “in crisis” and that the money is “there” and that we have a contractual obligation as a government and a people to continue the system. He’s also an asshole who is too arrogant to work on anything seriously with a diverse group of people. And if the SS commission isn’t diverse and isn’t interested in raising taxes on the very wealthiest to pay for shit then the whole thing should be dissolved.
I’m ticked at Obama for letting this happen by appointing a well known asshole like Simpson to the commission, and then for as usual being behind the ball and coming out with a strong pro-simpson statement instead of saying “This language towards voters and concerned citizens is out of place. I know Alan is ashamed of himself and realizes he can no longer perform his job with everyone’s confidence. I’ve asked for his resignation.” There’s no reason in the world Obama couldn’t/shouldn’t have done that.
aimai
John Cole
@aimai: I’m not responding to Digby. I’m responding to all the emails I’m getting from groups who want Simpson fired for sexism. I should note that in the post. I haven’t even had time this week to read Digby.
wenchacha
I think old Smilin’ Al was also suggesting older women, who are often dependent on SS in their later years, are somehow lazy and greedy by benefiting from the monthly checks.
Simpson rankles me all these years later when I remember his allusions to mail coming in “over the transom” regarding Anita Hill’s “proclivities.” Talk about your high-tech lynching.
Yeah, maybe “tits” is no longer a taboo word for IOKIYAR beneficiaries like Simpson. At least he didn’t wish flames upon Matt Drudge, thank FSM. Still, it is a pretty good example of his general contempt for women, although I’m sure he loved his mama.
He is like an earlier version of what is now Mike Huckabee: a reasonable-sounding, even affable Republican in puff piece interviews. Then when the mics are off, or the audience is smaller, all the really nasty hateful shit spews out. They’re both dicks. And I use that term in a totally non-sexist way.
Jennifer
Exactly. This is the gist of what I posted over at Greg Sargent’s on this very topic. Granted, Simpson is a nasty old geezer, but that’s not the issue. The issue is him pretending that Social Security is a HANDOUT when it’s something every working person in this country pays into with every paycheck. FU, Alan, one of those teats has MY NAME on it because I PAID FOR IT.
Maybe that’s not surprising; these days, the Masters of the Universe act like we should thank them for allowing us to enrich them by working long hours at substandard wages. Personally, I’ve had enough of “we gave your money to rich people so you poor folks are just going to have to adjust your expectations down again because it’s unAmerican to ask rich people to pay taxes” BS. The way I like to explain it is this: for most of us, Social Security and Medicare are the equivalent of a home mortgage – they’re long-term investments, things we pay for every month because they will some day be a necessity for us. Tax cuts and low tax rates for rich people are like that stupid shiny new boat in the driveway which is causing cash flow problems now that the economy has gone south. According to Republicans, the sensible thing to do is to default on the mortgage so we can keep up the payments on the boat. Never mind that the house represents actual financial wealth while the boat is an asset with a rapidly depreciating value. Never mind that without the house we’ll all be out on the street and that we only used the boat a couple of times per year – it’s the boat that matters.
F*** that noise.
This is so f***ing retarded that I can’t believe we have to go over it again and again and again.
PeakVT
The sexism wasn’t due to the word “tits.” Read the full e-mail from Simpson (PDF).
Paul in KY
@FlipYrWhig: But why him? I know we can find some other ‘Republicans’ who aren’t so bad as Simpson. They can be ‘fake’ Republicans or RINOs. Simpson was a hard core ‘McConnellite’ (to coin a phrase) when he was in the Senate.
He is NEVER going to do anything that he thinks will help Democrats.
John Cole
@PeakVT: Being wrong and a condescending asshole is not the same as being sexist. As has been noted, he was this kind of a jerk to males, as well.
FlipYrWhig
@Jayackroyd:
This train sure went to Crazytown faster than usual. Dolchstosse!
FlipYrWhig
@Paul in KY: If you’re going to pick a Republican, Simpson wasn’t a bad idea because he (IIRC) was considered to be in that Bob Dole mode, the curmudgeonly elder statesman. Of course he’s a dick, but that goes with the Republican territory. I don’t care enough about the commission to think it matters who’s on it; I think the point of raising hell about Simpson is to throw a spotlight on how the whole thing is A Bad Idea, which it is… so, whatever, go to town.
Jayackroyd
@aimai:
At some point, you have to conclude that the President has the advisers and advocates he wants to have, implementing the policies he wants to implement.
I have as much problem with Erskine Bowles as I do with Alan Simpson. Both are predisposed to cut SS benefits in service of the preservation of low taxes to capital holders and high wage earners.
Libby
Got nothing to do with tits really. I hate when the argument gets diluted with the sexism crap. The point is the whole catfood commission should be disbanded. It’s a bunch of rich white guys who want to destroy the middle class and the whole social safety net just so rich guys don’t have to pay a bit more taxes.
Simpson is a jackass, but so are the rest of them. FDL of all places had a good summary of what’s going on. The other problematic guy, besides Peter Peterson, is the military contractor guy who wants to freeze military pay, make them pay for their health care and other odious cutbacks so they don’t have to cut down on defense spending, e.g., contracts for that guy.
Think I got FDL link over at Atrios. One of those cryptic one sentence posts.
Jayackroyd
@FlipYrWhig:
Funny. I’ve been reading lately how thoughtful and substance- filled B-J comment threads are.
Do you have an argument you want to make?
Do you think Simpson is an appointment consistent with reality based analysis of deficit reduction? Do you not find the decision to have the commission report in December, after the elections, an interesting decision? Have you not noticed the growing narrative in the traditional media about the very falsehoods that Simpson is declaiming? (Try reading Matt Bai’s most recent work.)
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig:
But this just isn’t the point. WHY is there EVEN a Commission for us to be spending one second either a)being scared to death an actual compromise will be reached or b)spending one second saying the Commission is irrelevant?
There was zero need for this to happen. None.
Any “optics” gained by appearing serious on the deficit is overwhelmed by the full throated anger of people when they think it’s even the slightest bit possible something will happen to SS.
It’s an own goal, and if someone can explain the 11-D move here I’d love to hear it.
Corner Stone
@Jayackroyd:
14 of the 18 members could be described exactly this way.
Paul in KY
FlipYrWhig, I’m totally in favor of raising all kinds of Hell about Simpson, what a tool he is, how mendacious he is, etc. etc.
Pres. Obama should (as Aimai suggested) fire him. He won’t do that, but he should at least put out a press release stating how wrong Simpson is & how nasty (suggested Obama word: ‘unhelpful’) his mischaracterization of SS is. Too.
rickstersherpa
Just for kicks, I looked up what the full social security benefit is for a person who is 65 (and that benefit is already age adjusted, for those born in 1955, you won’t be able to collect the full benefit unitl you ar 66 and two months. For those born after 1960, you have to turn 67), the benefit, based on my high pay level is $2493 a month. If you retie at 62 now, it is $1869. This is about the price of a one night stay at the Jackson Hole Lodge in Simpson’s home state of Wyoming where the economic elite is staying this weekend. For our elite this is just chump change and they don’t see the problem of cutting it off. The evolution of our country’s elite into a self-contained aristocracy, with an extarordinarily selfish and materialistic set of values is probably what will destroy this country (see Matt Tabbai’s in the Rolling Stone).
Meanwhile,
geg6
John, Simpson could scream “tits!” all day, every day and I couldn’t care less. What was sexist was the tone of the entire email, which was basically a screed about how stupid this group of serious and informed elderly women voters are and that they are just a bunch of lazy dumb fucks who can’t read or understand anything complicated like a fucking graph. Obama SHOULD fire this mother fucker. Read the goddamn email and then tell me again that nothing about it was sexist, besides being ignorant and full of lies.
Frank
Obama said when the Commission started that everything was on the table, including Social Security. And that is fair. How could it not be? If it wasn’t then the GOP could make similar demands.
However, if Social Security is on the table, then so should defense spending. Defense is by far one the biggest items in our budget. How could that possibly not be included to be looked at?
Corner Stone
@Jayackroyd:
And that’s been my issue the whole time. Because even if this infernal Commission is a farce, and will get NOTHING passed the problem will then become the drum beat that everyone agrees something must be done.
And if not this Commission then the next one, or the one after that when Congress is closer to 50 – 50.
tomjones
What is your evidence that the entire commission does not understand the problem with social security?
D. Mason
@John Cole:
Oh grow up John, everything this guy says is a sexist
bitch calldog whistle.PeakVT
@John Cole: I’m not familiar with Simpson’s full oeuvre, but to me this email is condescending in a way that I don’t think he would be with a male.
low-tech cyclist
@John S.:
This.
People were upset about the 310 million tits because it implied that for its recipients, Social Security was all about getting a free handout. (“I paid for this handout, Mr. Green!”)
Like John says, the quite deserved charge of sexism was due to Simpson’s blatant implication that a bunch of old women couldn’t read a graph.
tomjones
@Corner Stone: Errrr, everyone does agree that something must be done. Krugman, Reich, any progressive economist you can name.
Liberals claim the problem is far off and can be solved solely by raising the cap on payroll taxes.
Conservatives claim the problem is, well, far off but should be solved by (a) gutting payments, (b) raising the retirement age, (c) privatization, or (d) all three.
tomjones
@Corner Stone: Further, if your argument holds true for Social Security, then I guess it must apply to any proposed tax increases or VAT that the commission proposes?
Corner Stone
@tomjones: Try going back and reading my entire post. The quote I selected is the lead in – that the narrative will be adopted from RW talking points.
Bill H
And apparently neither do you, John. Those receipts were not spent on anything. They were lent to the federal government which is the most sound and safe way of investing them that can be found. The liklihood that the government will be unable to repay them is in the vicinity of zero percent.
Corner Stone
@tomjones: Kind of a false equivalence, don’t you think?
tomjones
@Jennifer: To continue the analogy, a dairy farmer will purchase the dairy cow. Workers “purchase” social security.
Can a dairy farmer never be accused of over-milking this cow now, simply because he “paid for it?”
I’m just asking questions!
/glennbeck
D. Mason
@Bill H:
I agree with you here, the likelihood that the gov will be UNABLE to repay is near zreo percent. The likelihood that the gov will be UNWILLING to pay is significantly higher, maybe that’s part of the big hubbub.
JITC
What? That comment is only sexist if one believes women are akin to milk cows. Ridiculous.
Svensker
Simpson may be a sexist, probably is. Don’t really care. He’s an asshole, always was always will be (for whatever short time he has left).
What I find amazing that in the cartoon of Obama heading toward the taxpaying cow is there is not one bucket labeled “endless war” or “enormous security state.” But I guess they were paid for by the tax cuts for the rich.
Maude
Obama said he wanted to hear all points of view.
Simpson is exactly the voice that has been heard about Social Security since its inception. It’s good for it to be out in the open.
The attitude toward women broadens to everyone that isn’t him.
This does not mean that Obama is going to cut Social Security. I have a dog in this race and I am not worried about benifits cuts.
There is a contigent that has been banging the Social Secrutiry drum and it’s time that it was shown for what it is, a hatred for people not in a certain class, that is, the monied class.
I don’t like anyone stating that Obama is trying to harm people by not firing Simpson. At least it gets people taliking about this.
There are a lot of repulsive people around. Simpson is one of them. Let him talk. He is making the case for the end of the self superior attitude leading the way, ala Raygun.
Eisenhower used to call this type of Republican the Old Guard.
Bill H
@Frank:
Except that Social Security is not a part of the federal budget, it does not contribute to the federal deficit, and it does not increase the national debt. If it were in the budget it would presently be decreasing the deficit at this point, not increasing it, because Social Security is still taking in more than it pays out.
The subject of Social Security should not be “on the table” for federal deficit reduction, because it has nothing to do with the federal deficit.
Shalimar
@Jayackroyd:
I personally find this timing depressingly like what Bush did in early 2005: ignore Social Security during the election then try to change it after you are back in office. Except this time despite being equally unpopular it might pass if Obama endorses whatever changes the commission proposes. The same thing could happen with extending the Bush tax cuts, with Democrats potentially doing something unpopular and taking the heat for it when Republicans don’t have the votes to do it themselves.
I’m beginning to wonder if we aren’t better off just letting the crazy party burn down the house so we can at least try to rebuild something that isn’t rotten to the core. IMO, there is only one real issue in this country that dominates and controls every other: the richest 1% of Americans went from owning 13% of wealth in 1980 to 24% in 2008, and everything the two parties do seems to be aimed at making that number higher and higher. Those 1% are the only Americans who seem to matter to politicians, and nothing is going to change until we alter the system so this isn’t true.
demo woman
Alan Simpson has always been sexist and he has always wanted to gut social security. It seems to me that the screaming should have happened a long time ago. I’m not going to jump to conclusions about the Obama Administration now because his administration has been responsible for financial regulation, health care, the Lily Ledbetter Act and the stimulus. Could the bills have been better, well duh, and hopefully they are improved upon but at least they have been enacted into law.
Pat
Well, I’m an older woman and in MHO that email was condescending and sexist, so tough titty John!
Jayackroyd
I mentioned Matt Bai above.
DDay notes that the position attributed to Rep Blumenauer is directly contradicted by what his web site says on the issue.
eemom
@John Cole:
in my experience, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a sexist asshole and an equal opportunity asshole.
I’d wager there are plenty of sex discrimination claims out there where the defense is essentially: “No, really — he’s this much of a condescending asshole to employees that have dicks, too!”
kindness
Simpson is an asshole and he does deserve to be fired, but more because his whole mission is to gut Social Security, not shore it up.
The sucking on the teet is a metaphore that I don’t find sexist. The treating of the poor woman badly was caddish of Simpson, but again, I don’t find it sexist. I suspect he would be equally caddish had it been a man who said the same thing to him. Simpson’s point is gut the system. He’ll do that in whatever manner he thinks will further his cause.
Frankly, it’s Obama I’m worried about. You look at the people he put in the Cat Food Commission and it’s pretty obvious he isn’t interested in making sure Social Security has the funds to continue working for the next 100 years. His nominees all are the ‘pare the program’ folks. Frankly, this is one area where Democrats, independents, seniors and who ever need to stand up, call out bullshit on the President and tell the guy if he keeps acting like this he is guaranteeing himself to be a one term wonder.
debbie
Not this woman. Sucking the tit dry is exactly the image Simpson meant to convey. I mean, Simpson’s assumption is that SS is a government program where too many people are draining it of all its resources. That’s where he’s wrong. Using the T-word is irrelevant, really. Now the references to vapors and chart reading are another matter.
I don’t see Simpson’s remark as any more or less offensive than Harry Reid’s recent use of “negro/colored” (sorry, can’t remember which one it was). Both Reid and Simpson are emblems of a time that has long passed and neither should be given much more credence than that.
I’d like to get the money I paid in refunded and just call it a day. As it is, I’ll likely never see the almost 40 years’ worth of deposits I contributed. Especially now that they keep raising the age of eligibility. Combined with the undesirability of the older worker who more and more often is seen as a leper, I think a lot of people are going to be in trouble very soon.
Ryan
Just because a man is condescending towards a woman, it doesn’t automatically make the condescension sexist; it makes him an asshole, but unless the reason for the condescension springs from the sex of the aggrieved party, it is not sexism. In this case, Simpson is condescending to just about everyone who disagrees with him and this letter is no exception. I can’t stand the guy, but the charges of sexism are a little thin, and discredit claims of real sexism.
kc
I agree with this post. And would add that I don’t have any problem with Simpson’s “sucking on the government teat” imagery, because it’s the perfect opportunity to point out that the evil old bastard has himself been sucking on the government teat for much of his adult life.
Danny
Digby implied the entire rant was sexist (which it was), but was also upset that everyone seems to be focused on the fact that Alan Simpson used the word “tit”.
@John Cole
It seems to me that everyone in the Liberal Blogosphere(tm) has the same opinion you do (see Kthug, Digby, Salon, et al.). Basically Simpson is being a douche by implying that everyone on Social Security is on the dole. Maybe the MSM is upset that he used a naughty word, but everyone I’ve read on this is pissed that he wants to destroy Social Security. The fact that he uses the word tit is the least offensive part of the rant.
joe from Lowell
Just right, John.
Sentient Puddle
As far as the actual point of the deficit commission goes, can we go back to pointing out that passing health care reform will do more to reduce the deficit than any legislation in a long ass time ever has, and will do more than the commission could ever hope to in a best case scenario?
Alwhite
John – it wasn’t “tit” (although an asshole from WY that does not know the difference between a tit and a teat should be fired!). Read his whole email – he was demeaning to her in several ways and particularly related to who she is and who she was representing.
But that is not why he should be fired – he should be fired because he is going to give Obama cover to do what Boy Blunder only hoped to do: destroy Social Security for all time.
Felonious Wench
The guy’s an ass and a dick, but the e-mail wasn’t sexist to me. It was just some egotistical jerk talking out of his ass because someone pissed him off. I’m more interested in his reaction and why this got under his skin so much.
If the guy is fired, it should be because he’s obviously a real dick and a bully with a lack of ability to understand pretty charts don’t reality make. Too bad he won’t come visit our little blog for a while and express himself.
duck-billed placelot
Both/and
What is so hard to understand about that concept? WhyTF do so many people feel the need to defend this ass from charges of sexism?
Allison W.
@John S.:
he insulted her intelligence, but he didn’t say she was stupid because she was a woman. Nothing in that sentence refers to her sex. His arrogant remark is no different than what I see here at Juice or any other blog. People are only assuming it was a sexist remark because they know the target of the letter is a woman. Simpson is an immature asshole, but I don’t see sexism in that statement.
georgia pig
That’s why Simpson should be fired. Not because he is sexist, but because he doesn’t even understand the problem with social security. Hell, that is why the entire commission should be disbanded.
Au contraire. You’re assuming Obama wants the commission to do anything other than posture. The commission is a farce. Unlike the Reagan/O’Neill commission of 1983, it has no legislative authority because the Republicans refused to cooperate. Simpson’s stupidity is a feature, not a bug. He’s performing as expected, he’s always been a loudmouth asshole, and now he’s a senile loudmouth asshole basically telling a bunch of folks “I got mine, fuck you and get off my lawn.” Once again, the conservatives get stuck with a nasty old fart for a spokesman. He just pissed off a bunch of women, including a number of older women that probably would not have been affected by any changes in benefits. BTW, the sexism is in the condescension, not the tits, but the tits add a little flavor.
Allison W.
@Jayackroyd:
sorry. nonsense. whether simpson had made that comment or not and even IF Obama had fired him, that Obama wants to cut (actually gut is the word that’s being used) benefits is the rumor/paranoia that has been and will continue to spread throughout the liberal blogosphere.
Allison W.
nope. politicians are always thinking about the next election. During the stimulus debate (beginning 2009) politicians were thinking about 2010 midterms. And if SS cuts come up for a vote, politicians will be thinking of 2012.
Allison W.
@Alwhite:
this is why some on the left will never get taken seriously. if the dems and obama wanted this then they would have gotten it done under the boy blunder and let the boy blunder take the flack for it. why in the freaking world would they wait until they have the wh, house, and the senate (when the spotlight is on them and gop in minority) to do it. After all Dems are a bunch of pussies right?
tkogrumpy
@Maude: Thanks for that insight, Maude.
WereBear
I called my congresscritter to complain about Simpson. My points, really, were these:
Why is Simpson the one sucking up air time to state my eventually getting Social Security is a drain and a waste? My “savings” have tanked, I’ve used up other resources keeping my chronically ill husband alive, and all I have left between me & cat food is that Social Security I’m paying in.
Why can’t my Congressperson be the one making a big fuss about this? I am not the only one out there in such a fix, and feeling this way.
lol
@georgia pig:
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
Would you rather have some telegenic Heritage Foundation Randroid who’s smart enough to keep his views under wraps representing the right-wing side of the commission or some loudmouth asshole Republican who can’t stop talking about what lazy welfare queens all you broads are?
Bill H
@georgia pig:
Actually, there is a distinct possibility that it will have significant power. Pelosi has already scheduled an “up or down” vote on the commission’s report immediately after it is delivered in December. That means that the House is to vote on accepting the recommendations of the commission without discussion or amendments. It would still have to get through the Senate, but…
So if the commission recommends cuts to Social Security, and the House votes to accept the commission’s report, then the House will have voted in favor of cutting Social Security. Do not think for one minute that such a thing is impossible, or even that it is seriously unlikely. It could very easily happen.
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
Simpson’s tit reference is not sexism. But his reply in general was in a context that could be taken as having sexist and class warfare connotations. It isn’t just about Social Security and the fact that he gets it wrong, he has been doing that for decades and should come as no shock to anyone.
What should come as a shock is that he would treat these particular people, the Older Women’s League, with such disdain and lack of respect. The sexist smell is pretty strong on his shitty email, and if we are calling spades spades, then yes, this is sexist crap and we shouldn’t put up with it. I remind you that I am probably the hardest sell on this blog for charges of sexism in public discourse, so if it pulls my sexism detector trigger, it should pull anybody’s.
Even for him and his stupid legacy of talking like an educated hillbilly, it is pretty surprising. And it is even more surprising that we can’t find somebody else to do his job better than he can do it.
jstuddle
The Obama “lipstick on a pig” reference was not attacked for being sexist, it was attacked because the Republicans interpretted it to mean that Obama was calling Palin a pig.
georgia pig
@Bill H: Yeah, maybe if the Republicans can win back the House. Remember, any bill has to have Obama’s signature. Sure, Obama may be secretly pining to cut Social Security, but if he is, we’re fucked anyway, and whether Simpson is on the commission or not is completely irrelevant. In addition, he’d be a complete moron to do so if he wants to get re-elected. The paranoia that gets stirred up on liberal blogs about these things is bit over the top.
Jon H
@BrklynLibrul: “Women may hear that comment differently, John.”
Well, they might want to try extracting milk from a bull then.
Sentient Puddle
@Bill H: But has Pelosi made any indication that she wants to actually pass whatever the commission recommends? To me, just scheduling a vote doesn’t mean much. Without any other indicators, I’d say the most likely outcome would be that Republicans look at the report and go “BOO TAX HIKES!”, Democrats go “NO SOCIAL SECURITY CUTS!”, and the bill goes down something like 30-400.
neil
I think the real sexist part of his rant was the dripping condescension in the e-mail in question. He didn’t say “Make me a sandwich, grandma” – but he came pretty damn close.
In this case, he happened to be acting sexist as well as what he normally is – an entitled, supercilious, garden-variety prick. Simpson has no human respect for anybody from what I’ve ever been able to gather. He’s an arrogant bastard, and always has been.
I don’t hold out too much hope he’ll be canned, though – because the whole point of the catfood commission is to raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits for those “greedy geezers” he’s been calling old people for decades.
Since he’s pushing 8o himself, and is a millionaire, I imagine he thinks its Seniors’ fault that they didn’t make killings in the stock market or get a cushy job as a Senator, where you get to suck from the government teat forever, for no other reason that you managed to sucker a plurality of yee-haws in Wyoming to vote for you. He makes it sound like Social Security is some kind of welfare program instead of a pension.
That’s why he should be knocked off the commission – but I would submit, that’s precisely why he’s “on” the commission.
Bill H
@georgia pig:
I didn’t say it was likely to become law, even said that I didn’t think it would make it through the Senate and therefor would not make it to Obama’s desk for signature. I actually have not seen anything in Obama’s agenda that suggests to me he has any desire to cut Social Security, which makes his selections for this commission all the more baffling. Nonetheless, if the commission does make SS cuts part of its recommendation, which is likely, and it does get to a House vote, it will become a “big deal” and stir up a lot of shit. I’m not seeing a lot of “paranoia” in that position, just a willingness not to be blinded by some sort of fervent faith in Obama.
Bill H
@Sentient Puddle:
I would not necessarily count on there being much if any tax hikes, not am I as sanguine as you are about Democrats voting against cuts in Social Security.
Quiddity
Simpson would love the debate to be about alleged sexist comments. Don’t fall for it.
georgia pig
@Bill H: I don’t see how Pelosi lets that vote come up in the form you’re suggesting. If the Republicans win the House and bring it forward, then they own it. You want it to be a big deal, because then Obama can square off against them like Clinton did against Gingrich. The House Republicans will likely overplay their hand, because they’re wingnuts and can’t help themselves.
Elie
@Maude:
This this this
LT
I thought the same thing, but an older woman politely said to me (in comments at DKos) that she felt differently, and that the fact that the comment was directed at the OWL sure made it seem sexist.
I’m still not sure Simpson wouldn’t have said the same thing to anyone, and believe he’s probably said it before.
Lysana
FYI, you can be sexist and an equal-opportunity asshole at the same time. Though why this has to be said boggles my mind.
Tim I
@Bill H:
Simpson was a brilliant choice for Co-Chairman. He has had diarrhea of the mouth since he was first elected to the Senate. He leaps at any opportunity to spout into a microphone. And he generally says what he thinks, without filters.
Obama selected Simpson because he is just about the worst possible Republican spokesman on Social Secutiry. He is rude, cantankerous, and profane.
Every woman in America hates him, along with most of the men. I hope he is able to hang on to his job. Like Michael Steele, he is a gift that keeps on giving.
asiangrrlMN
He is a dick and he’s a sexist. There. Not so difficult.
Anne Laurie
@Jon H:
That was Dubya’s job, if you remember Laura being ‘funny’ for the cameras.
To repeat myself, if a guy like Simpson who’s made a very very nice living out of “sucking the government tit” gets to bitch about all those (us!) wimmen relying on the Social Security lifeline for which we have always ‘donated’ a much higher percentage of our salaries than Simpson, than we get to bitch that he’s a sexist prick who should be fired for being deliberately stupid or lying or both.
Maybe it would have been better to call Simpson a diseased tick grown fat by draining a starving dog, because there isn’t anything in his history that suggests he’s made contributions to his country anywhere near the amount he’s managed to drain from our joint coffers.
hilzoy
In a way, calling Simpson sexist is being charitable, since it implies that he might be willing to treat just under half the people on earth with basic decency and respect. I’ve read an email he wrote to someone else, who is male, and it’s exactly as obnoxious and condescending. So, alas, I think this is just the way he treats everyone who disagrees with him.
John Cole
@hilzoy: Bingo.
jl
I don’t care whether Simpson is fired for being sexist. I do think he should be fired for being an arrogant, incompetent, misinformed and prejudiced commission chairman, who is doing a miserable job at running a committee that is not doing what it was supposedly designed to do.
Bowles is softsoap version of Simpson and should be fired too.
liberal
@Corner Stone:
Heh.
Julie
While I do think he was sexist, it’s not because of the tit remark. And yes, he does treat everyone who doesn’t agree with him like a lame-brained idiot, male or female. But I’m happy to sign any petition to fire him, for any reason, because I’d be happy to see him fired. It’s been obvious from the start that the commission’s main focus would be cutting Social Security and that he was only picked as a co-chair because of his prejudice against it. I’m glad he said it because it’s finally drawn some media attention to this lousy cabal.
futzinfarb
Notwithstanding all the erudite discussion of Simpson’s foot-in-mouth disease in this thread, I actually found the most striking and perhaps alarming thing about Simpson’s email to Carson was its closing: “Call when you get honest work!” This summary insult/observation by Simpson straightforwardly indicates that he views Ms. Carson’s efforts as illegitimate. A quick perusal of OWL’s website shows that Ms. Carson leads a non-profit organization among whose missions is improving the quality of life for a significant portion of the population, many of whom are, by any standard, in need. As I understood the “compassionate conservatism” paradigm, quite a bit of it revolved around the idea that government can’t be expected to do anything well, so non-profit and religious organizations must be the biggest part of the answer to addressing the needs of the “lesser people.” But Simpson strips away this mask. He apparently has contempt even for non-governmental organizations who act in the interest of those in need. The way it looks to me is that the endpoint of the current conservative evolution, an endpoint to which we look remarkably close, is that human misery is really a necessary and desirable aspect of society, so much so that anyone who would act to alleviate it is suspect.
debbie
A Newt wannabe.