Rekna

Anyone know what the joke was? I know it was a joke that used a sexual pun using the words Bush and Dick.

Anyone have any idea what she actually said? I have been googleing it with no luck.

pan6467

That's just it noone probably would ever have known (except those in attendance) or truly cared had Slim Fast not made this an issue.

I'm sure what she said will be in all the tabloids very soon.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Rekna

I just hate that everyone is making a huge deal of it but no one knows what she actually said. If anyone finds the quote please post it.

Journeyman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...261911,00.html

Rekna

thats it?

onetime2

From all accounts that I've seen it was not restricted to a single comment. None of them provided a transcript however.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

wonderwench

It is telling that the organizers of the event are withholding the transcript.

Slim-Fast has acted well within their rights of free association. If they do not like the image she portrays, it is very reasonable to cancel their business relationship.

This is the risk every celebrity takes when advocating political positions or making displays of vulgarity.

kutulu

So Republicans have any idea how whiney they are sounding about this? Is she really the first person to make the "Bush" connection? Haven't people been making x-rated jokes about Presidents for years?

sportsrule101

I doubt slim fast is all republican if at all, they just don't want any controversy to come their way. It never was a secret what party whoopie supports.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

cthulu23

I believe that a large group of Freepers, and probably other Repub bloggers, organized a quick email campaign to pressure Slim-Fast into getting rid of Whoopie. Now, I'm always a fan of less Whoopie, but the reaction does seem a bit overboard. Although both sides of the aisle do engage in this sort of behavior, messing with someone's livliehood is always ugly business.

kutulu

It's just typical of they way Republicans do business these days.

Rather than edit this comment that does nothing to further constructive dicsussion here, I'll leave it as an example of a tactic that will be the basis for action here in the future. If you have a point to make that involves the use of your reasoning power and is not simply a pot shot thrown haphazardly and irrelevantly then make it. This post is not one of those.

onetime2

Making off color and disrespectful jokes about Presidents is certainly appropriate for comedians in their acts, books, movies, etc. Doing it at a rally for the person seeking to be the next President while he allegedly laughs along is, at the very least, inappropriate.

The tendency towards disrespecting people is becoming more and more disgusting IMO. Don't like someone's policies, then it's apparently ok to insult, deride, or sully their personal character.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cosmoknight

The President of Slim Fast is actually a Democrat and donated over a million this year to his party. There was a time in politics when crude vulgar statements were not the norm. The real reason for him canning Whoopi is pure money. Slimfast is losing ground in the diet foods market and he doen't want to isolate his customers by having a spokeswoman who bashes the President. As a spokesperson they should remain neutral and uncontroversial .

onetime2

That is absolutely right. When celebrities (or others) make the choice to be spokespeople, their reputation and actions become linked with the company they represent. Obviously her endorsement deals are of less importance to her than her ability to make such political commentary. That is a choice entirely on her head not the Republicans (or others) who are offended by her actions/statements. Just as she has a right to say what she wants they have a right to respond. Whether that response is in the form of letters, emails, advertisements, or spending is irrelevant.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Hanxter

slim-fast is a unit of unilever. unilever execs have donated $3000 to bush and $1250 to kerry for the 2004 campaign. slim-fast founder, f. daniel abraham, who sold the company to unilever in
2000 is a major donor to the dem's and has given kerry $2000 this year.

regardless of whether it's abraham or the pres. of unilever, he can do what he wants with his money, not unilever's...

where's the source he gave millions???

Hanxter

my source...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-0...slimfast_x.htm

cthulu23

Really? What golden age was that?

Here's one cheerful dig at Grover Cleveland who was alleged to have sired an illegitimate child:


And here is a sign held to greet Andrew Jackson and his wife (the sign refers to his wife):
There were also baseless allegations that John Quncy Adams procured a prostitute for Czar Alexander I while minister to Russia.

American history is rife with examples just like this. I agree that we should remain try to remain civil, but let's have a little perspective. The fact that a comedian would make an off-color remark about a politician is hardly shocking.

Sparhawk

As cthulu23 noted, off color jokes about Presidents go back centuries. While Whoopi does need to take personal responsibility, there is a segment of the population out there that is in a hulabaloo about this, and strangely silent about "Go Fuck Yourself."

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

OFKU0

Up until this threat appeared, I had honestly completely forgotton about Whoopie. Hmmm,..how 'bout that!

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

cosmoknight

July 13, 2004 -- WASHINGTON — Some Republican activists are launching a boycott of SlimFast diet products to protest SlimFast spokeswoman Whoopi Goldberg's X-rated rant against President Bush at a New York fund-raiser for Democrat John Kerry last week.
Chat pages on pro-Bush Web sites like FreeRepublic.com are posting links for complaints to SlimFast or parent company Unilever, along with reports from angry consumers about what they wrote in their complaints.

A typical one: "Realize that when Goldberg insults our president, particularly in such a vulgar fashion, she alienates half the country . . . Can SlimFast really afford to lose half of their potential market?"

SlimFast executives yesterday didn't respond to questions about whether they intend to keep Goldberg as spokeswoman. Company president F. Daniel Abraham is a major Democratic donor who, with his wife, has given $1.2 million to groups working to defeat Bush.


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27252.htm

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/p...y.aspx?aid=120

http://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/...hNews_1035.asp

cosmoknight

Go back about thirty years ago and point out when Hollywood all got together to use vulgarity to bash a sitting president. Off color jokes sure, actively campaigning and using that type of language to describe their leader I think not. Even the worst roasts would pale by todays off the cuff comments. Remarks from Hollywood IMO are polarizing this nation. It used to be if you wanted political dialogue you read the papers or watch the news channels. Now you can't avoid it. Turn on your television and one of their talking heads follows up their acceptance speech with a jab; watch a music video hear the same thing. Sitcoms loaded with them as well. Many have turned them off completely which isolates portions of this society, which is never good. IMO they are the single greatest thing dividing this country. It used to be only a few percent cared enough about politics to really follow them. Now being constantly bombarded and insulted only drives people to the extremes.

Hanxter

groups not party...

cosmoknight

Groups like 527's which are only groups because they get around the soft money ban. 527's = talking pieces for parties.

Hanxter

The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices.


$2,000 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.

$5,000 per calendar year to a PAC or State party committee -- A PAC is a "Political Action Committee." PACs and party committees give the money you give them to candidates they support.

$25,000 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.

$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees

$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee
Married couples are considered to be separate individuals with separate contribution limits.

but getting back on topic - whoopies actions reflect on the party she's endorsed as well as any company she represents...

if i were kerry i'd have her on the carpet and not allow her in the building come the convention

MSD

My mom was making a big deal about it for a few days. She's probably the most easily offended person alive, so I didn't think much of it, especially when she said she didn't actually know what was said other than Bush's name used as an anatomical reference

pan6467

It amazes me when people take what celebrities say so seriously. Celebrities made fun of Clinton ALL THE TIME, and these right wingers who complain about Whoopie just laughed.

Do we have a segment of our population that truly sits around and says, "these celebs make millions they must be smarter than me and more educated. Therefore, I don't care what Kerry/Bush says, by God if Pee Wee Herman supports Kerry well then I'm voting for Bush."

Or, "Damn Whoopie had some fucking nerve to say that, I'm with ya sister, fuck Bush I'm voting Kerry cause Whoopie made fun of Bush."

If we have gotten so low as to let Hollywood and other celebrities influence our vote, I am deeply ashamed of my fellow citizens and fearful that someday someone who truly is the next Hitler will take advantage of that mentality and glide into the White House.

They have a right to say what they want and how they want just as we do. And by having that right we should never condemn nor blindly follow what they say.

Companies that know of a star's history in political satire and rhetoric take that risk when they hire them. Whoopie has made fun of every president since she has been around, SlimFast/UniLever should have known that and if they felt they couldn't handle the heat they should never have hired her.

It's like Anita Bryant for years and years was the spokeslady for Florida OJ, she took to task a local law against gays and lost her job.

Why? Do companies think we, the people are so ignorant that we take what these celebs who make millions and live in their own realities so seriously?

And I have always wondered why boycott something just because the spokesperson voices their opinion?

Is not our country based on freedom of speech and opinion.

Now if Whoopie were doing a SlimFast commercial and made jokes then, she was speaking officially for the company and that is wrong. But she was at a fundraiser and she has her right to say whatever she wants.

I don't like Charlton Heston's politics but does that mean I will never buy something he endorsed or stop watching his movies? No. Because I can seperate his private beliefs from his work.

Those who threaten boycott are doing 2 things: 1) destroying someone's right to free spech and 2) trying to control others to do what that group wants them to do. Both are very very wrong.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

docbungle

I completely agree with EVERYthing pan6467 said. Well done.

__________________
Bad Luck City

cosmoknight

I would if I could get away from it. Seriously I can't even watch the Shield without having some off the cuff smart comment on Iraq and that’s from the Fox network. How would you feel if sports went 90% conservative and after every game they had some wise crack to make about liberalism. Every award show would be turned into a bash the Dem fest. Its not that we elevate their opinion, far from it. However the constant bleating of their well rehearsed talking points does grate on the nerves. I would like some of my life to be politically neutral.

onetime2

So, do you also disagree with other political action groups per your statement 2? Say the NJPIRGs (New Jersey Public Interest Research Group), et als? And in reference to your statement 1, are these people not simply exercising their right to free speech, free association, and free choice?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

wonderwench

Those who boycott are simply exercising their constitutional rights of free expression and association. There is nothing more American than that.

ubertuber

pan6467

Two issues here - I don't think that people decide their votes because of celebs, but because the public watches them so closely, their statements are free, unregulated advertising.

Secondly, Slimfast didn't just hire Whoopi. In fact, they didn't hire her at all. They hired her image because they want to associate their product with that image. If she didn't have her image (which I see as a savvy, witty, urban woman who is pretty intelligent) she'd be just another Jane off the street and Slimfast wouldn't hire her as a spokeswoman. Accordingly, when her image, whether during an "official" ad or not, departs from what the company wants to portray I can't blame them for dismissing her. I'd say the same thing if she made an anti-Kerry joke that they felt was inappropriate.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Sparhawk

Yup. I boycott Domino's because its founder is a raving right-wing loon. I think others are just as entitled to boycott a product if its spokesperson espouses a political argument in direct opposition to their way of thinking.

(Although I think hot dogs and apple pie are more American than even that)

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

pan6467

I understand what you are saying but, to say because a celeb has more exposure that what they say is free advertisement, they need to watch what they say is ridiculous. They are entitled to thier opinion, we just don't have to listen to it.

As for Whoopie's image, yes what you said is part of her image, but so is being very outspoken in regards to liberal politics.

My opinion she can say whatever she wants in a non commercial, it is not going to affect my view of the product. And if it were then I obviously have problems deeper than having a celeb tell me what to buy or think.

As for boycotts, seems a bunch of you want to reem me for my opinion that they are meaningless and more of a control thing than anything.

I know that there are boycotts or just the mere threat of one that some businesses will just cave in. I, personally, just think that a vast majority of boycotts are to get what a small vocal minority wants and shows disregard for the majority.

My opinion is if you boycott because a spokesperson for that company said something while in their "personal" time or totally unrelated to the product, your boycott is about what you want and control. Your boycott to me holds no merit.

Now, you boycott a tunafish company because they kill dolphins in the nets then that's a legitimate boycott, because you are boycotting a company for it's business practices and not for the opinion of an employee.

To boycott a business for business practices is a way to change things and is in most cases very productive.

However, IMO, to boycott a company for the spokesperson or what they say (when they are not selling the product at the time) is ridiculous and you are boycotting solely because you don't like what someone said, which then IMO becomes about control and not about business practices.

If Whoopie had been seen out and eating a Weight Watchers dinner then maybe I could understand SlimFast being upset and firing her. (Because in public she is using the competitors brand and that would be bad publicity and business.) But because she spoke out on politics (at a political fundraiser, not televised) and she is and has always been political and told off color jokes about politics it's a crime... to me it's pathetic.

There are opinions here I dislike, but you will never see me tell someone not to post and express themselves (unless they attack another poster maliciously, but attacking a public/political figure is all part of free speech). You cannot have a free speech in society if you limit when or where any certain person can speak.

It is also very telling that the people who laughed whenever a public figure ripped on Clinton and took very personal shots at him are now the ones so enraged about what Whoopie said.

It's ok for one side but not the other. It's like when people were ready to roast Clinton and kick him out of office and so on, yet when Gingrich did the exact same thing those same people said nothing about that.

IMO, if you attack Whoopie then you have to attack and say the same things about a celeb that made Clinton jokes or makes Kerry jokes. Plain and simple.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

wonderwench

Then we have finally found a bit of common ground - I also boycott Domino's because I think the founder is a raving lunatic. I will not call him right wing because his politics are not represenative of the true right.

docbungle

I don't understand how someone's politics can interfere with who anyone orders pizza from. The entire idea of boycotting seems ridiculous to me. It's saying that, because you feel differently about something (something having nothing to do with pizza), that no one should order pizza from THESE people. Instead, order pizza from these OTHER people, because they are more like I am, and I agree with their lifestyle, or their opinions, or whatever it may be.

Boycotting a business for the owner's political views doesn't change the taste of the pizza. And I think the taste of the pizza is far more important than the owners thoughts on politics.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Sparhawk

I like to put my money where my mouth is. As it were.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

wonderwench

You are making mistaking an individual's or a group's decision to boycott as meaning that everyone else should also boycott. If others chose to participate, fine. If they don't, the boycotters are still engaged in expressing their freedom of choice.

Considering how there is loud criticism aimed by some at corporations for not being good citizens, what better way to show displeasure than in denying them one's hard-earned money?

braindamage351

Has anyone, EVER, said that they refuse to buy a product because the spokesperson made a harmless joke about a president in a comedy act that had nothing to do with the product?

Superbelt

I also boycott Dominoes. Primarially because the founder dumps millions of dollars a year into whacko political activism that I absolutely don't agree with. I don't want my money used that way. Fine if he wants to run his business like that, but don't expect to ever get my money.

Kadath

I used to boycott Domino's because of Operation Rescue. Now I don't eat it because I realized it's crap pizza, but it still pleases me to not accidentally support those who kill abortion doctors.

To really pull this all the way off topic, this whole Whoopi thing is along the lines of the "W" ketchup -- they don't want to support Kerry by buying Heinz -- forgetting that there are plenty of other ketchup brands aside from the supermarket brand -- it's friggin' ketchup, it tastes the same. It isn't about not accidentally supporting someone you despise, it's about politicizing everything you can get your hands on, and I'm tired as hell of it. Shut up. Donate money, cast your vote, go to a rally if you like. Stop dragging politics into everything.

__________________
it's quiet in here