April 17, 2012

Click Bait

Hatched by Dafydd

All right, here's the current main argument for recalling Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, as enunciated by Progressivist bloggers:

Ciara Matthews

Walker's communications director, Ciara Matthews,
back in college when she worked at Hooters

If I may flesh out the argument a bit more, perhaps you will see the force of its logic:

Resolved: Wisconsonites should recall Walker from gubernatorial office because his good-looking communications director, Ciara Matthews, was a total babe when she was in her early twenties.

Here are some Progressivists in full cry, making the Argument of Hypocritical Hooterism...


In a hypocritical turn, Matthews seems totally fine with selling chaste sexiness but not permitting sexuality -- she used to be a waitress at Hooters. Now, short of cooking meth or murdering enemies of the mob, doing what you have to do to work your way through college is generally admirable, and Matthews shouldn't be faulted for donning the shiny suntan nylons and orange short shorts of the Hooters uniform. As they say, if you've got it, flaunt it. But profitting from selling a plasticized form of unnatural sexiness designed to arouse men while simultaneously believing that women should be forced to face the "consequences" of actually giving into to their sexual desires is a pretty backward way of thinking. [By "consequences," Ms. Erin Gloria Ryan means that Matthews opposes abortion -- DaH.] And she should be taken to task for it. So we've posted this hilarious picture of her in her Hooters uniform to illustrate the ridiculousness of all of this -- Walker, Matthews, their wacky beliefs, and the general asshats who we've somehow elevated to positions like Governor of an entire goddamn state. Vote, people! This is what happens when you don't!

The Capital Times:

The Jezebel.com website that posted her photo questions how Matthews can square her work for an organization that clearly markets sexuality with her longtime war on Planned Parenthood and, well, all those traditional Republican values.

I can see that your ire is aroused, and you may be about ready to take matters in hand; if you lived in Wisconsin, I'm quite certain you would be starting to doubt whether Walker is fit to serve in public office after employing a woman who is attractive and was at one time willing to wear shorts and a tank top.

Let's firm-up the argument. Here, look at Ms. Matthews' chest:

Ciara Matthews' Chest

Ciara Matthews' chest

Your anti-Walker position is hardening. Now look at her legs:

Ciara Matthews' Legs

Ciara Matthews' legs

I can sense you getting all hot and bothered about the opportunity to vote Walker out of office. Imagine, having a communications director who looked like that. How could anyone possibly oppose recalling Governor Walker after seeing this picture?


However... I shamefacedly confess I'm missing something -- like some connection, however feeble, between antecedent and conclusion. Here, try this one on for size:

Resolved: Americans should defeat Barack H. Obama's bid for reelection because his good-looking wife, Michelle, was a total babe when she was in her early twenties.

Does it make sense when applied against the Left, as some believe it does against the Right? How, exactly? And what is the logical contradiction between (a) promoting sexuality, while at the same time (b) opposing abortion?

I'm trying to imagine the target audience for this argument; who is it who will decide to vote for Walker's recall opponent -- Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett or erstwhile Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk -- because a senior member of Walker's staff was once a young hottie?

  • Are conservatives supposed to be turned off of supporting Walker by this revelation? Conservatives don't like hot chicks? I vaguely remember many conservatives (metaphorically) slavering over Carrie Prejean, the maritally conservative Miss USA contestant; not to mention Michelle Malkin, Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, Megyn Kelly, and the girl in the Snorgtees. And of course, Power Line's John Hinderaker regularly posts pictures of beauty-pageant contestants on the blog. Evidently, conservative males (and conservative lesbians, perhaps) do enjoy the sight of beautiful women, conservative or otherwise.
  • How about conservative straight women? I've never seen even one example of the hatchet-faced, censorious, shrewish, misogynistic caricature that Progressivists falsely accuse conservative women of displaying. Have you?

    If not, then I doubt the Ciara Syllogism is driving conservatives away from the polls in May.

  • Nor do I notice that independents are particularly repelled by the sight of a beautiful, young femme. Should they be? Is there something in the water that independents drink that causes them to recoil from what others enjoy? Not that I've noticed.
  • And goodness knows, the sight of a good-looking, scantily clad hunkette certainly should not bother a liberal! Their entire ideology appears to be nothing but an excuse for promiscuity of various kinds, particularly coital. They live for libido.

So which group of Wisconsin voters, even in the delusional minds of the red "feminists" who are pushing this argument, are supposed to be swung towards recall by a jpeg of Ciara Matthews in her Hooter days? Enquiring minds... are baffled.

I try to avoid assuming that Progressivists and modern liberals are all drooling idiots; it's too easy an answer to virtually everything they say or do. But when you have eliminated the impossible...

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 17, 2012, at the time of 1:12 AM


The following hissed in response by: snochasr

See, it's like this. You aren't allowed to tease like that, you have to get down and dirty-- free love and all that sort of thing. You know, no consequences and it's all somebody else's fault. If only the taxpayers could be forced to provide that $3000 birth control regimen, we wouldn't need so many abortions. See, isn't that logical? :-/

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 17, 2012 4:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

We have a couple things going on here, Dafydd.

1) Democrat/liberal women hate conservative/republican women. It's because conservative/republican women are happy and beautiful and nothing makes them more angry than this. It's called envy.

2) It's called projection. Have you heard of the "Republican war on women?" It brings to mind a corrupt police officer beating someone while yelling, "Stop resisting me, stop resisting me!" when the subject of the beating is doing nothing of the sort. Democrats love to accuse Republicans of that for which they are guilty.

Chalk this one up as just another sign that the real war is the "Democrat war on women." Ann Romney, Michelle Malkin, Ciara Matthews, and any other woman who dares not to be a Democrat and live on their plantation by their rules.

I remember once, a very long time ago, watching Bill Maher tell his audience (I think it was on Jay Leno) that American's were stupid. They audience laughed and I thought, "Don't they know he's talking to them?"

Liberals and Democrats don't realize it. They don't realize that when Bill Maher is calling Sarah Palin the C word, he's mocking successfull and beautiful women. The successful and beautiful women who like Bill Maher and laughing and the joke goes right over their head.

Studying this as a sociologist would probably be quite interesting.

But the sociologists are too busy telling all of us that those of us who watch Faux News are stupid.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 17, 2012 12:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: GW

1. Dafydd, I think you set a personal record for double entendres with this one.

2. When I first saw the picture and before reaching your commentary, my initial thought was that this must be a progressive ad implying that all the hotties are going to vote against Walker.

3. I think that you did your blog readers a public service by taking the time to firm up the argument. Thank you.

4. I am always amazed at how the left completely eliminates the moral issues from abortion, thus allowing them to contend that to embrace sex while opposing abortion is hypocritical and, itself, a moral wrong. Argument becomes much easier when you simply ignore the other side's argument.

5. This whole bizarre line of argument seems to derive from one of Alinsky's rules about holding the opposing side to their own impossible standards. Apparently, to the drafters of this argument, all Conservatives are the progeny of an illicit union between the Church Lady and Jerry Falwell, and thus showing some skin (above the ankle) or otherwise hinting about sex outside of the bedroom, behind locked doors and between consenting and married (to each other) adults is a mortal sin for conservatives. The left who dreamed up this ad are not "drooling idiots," just wholly untethered from reality.

6. That said, I may donate to them to double down with more of these ads. I for one appreciate the aesthetics and it certainly won't harm the conservative cause.

The above hissed in response by: GW [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 17, 2012 1:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Captain Ned

Nice Ferrari. They have that power.

The above hissed in response by: Captain Ned [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 17, 2012 3:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

University of Virginia professor Jonathan Haidt’s did a great study where he asked individuals to answer questionnaires regarding their core moral beliefs—what sorts of values they consider sacred, which they would compromise on, and how much it would take to get them to make those compromises. He then rated individuals as to whether they held liberal, conservative, or moderate beliefs.

He then re-ran the study, but asked the participants to fill out the form as if they were someone different. That is to say, liberals were asked how a conservative might answer the questions, and conservatives were asked how a liberal might answer.

What Haidt found is conservatives and moderates were easily able to predict liberal responses, but liberals were helpless to predict conservative responses. And the cluelessness was increasingly pronounced the more liberal a person was, with the hardest of liberals completely deluded as to what any conservative anywhere actually believes.

This ad manifests the results of that study. The people who made it are obviously hardcore liberals, because who else would be so utterly clueless as to what conservative morals actually are?

This also goes to the recent Obamacare debate where the lawyer for the government seemed to have no clue, no answer, to obvious and logical questions presented from the conservative point of view.

This is one reason liberals frequently get angry and irrational when confronted with logical conservative arguments - they just don't know what to do, or what to say. The classic saying is that to win a debate, you have to fully understand the opponent's position. But liberals...can't. People who think of themselves as intelligent are suddenly tongue tied. They are adrift and scared. They then do the only thing left - lash out emotionally, or lie incessently.

Obama makes straw men so often because ... well...he can't realy concieve of what the opposing argument actually is. So he makes one up. Liberals listen to him and think he is some sort of genious for explaining the conservative mind. Conservatives look at one another and say "who they hell is this guy talking about?"

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 25, 2012 11:25 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2013 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved