Ted Cruz Blasts Washington Post Cartoon of Daughters as Monkeys

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think the outrage stems, not from the cartoonist having Cruz's children drawn into the bit,...but from the fact that they were portrayed as panhandling chimps.

Specifics matter.

Personally, I would have went with a pinocioe (sp?) reference with cruz being Gipeto controlling/pulling the strings on Marinette dolls of his girls with all three having really long noses. The monkey referenced is too easy to attack given the different conotations that are associated with it.

originally posted by: PresidentCamacho
a reply to: ReadLeader

Just imagine the outrage if this was Obama's daughters.

But because of Cruz's ethnicity and his political party the SJW's who would go nuts over this kind of stuff just brush it off.

There would be more outrage due to racial symbology involed. It would change the entire context of the cartoon even if unintended.

I haven`t been following his campaign close enough to know if he is using his daughters to gain support, or not, but him using the cartoon to raise money is equally as tasteless and classless as the cartoon itself.

I think everyone should just save everyone's quotes on this subject/thread. I'd fav this thread in order to go back and quote both sides of the issue.
Let's just see how consistent people are a month from now when a similar topic comes up.

I want people to be consistent. If youre for free speech be for it all the time. If you are a SJW or in general whiner I want you to consistently whine.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Ghost147

The Cartoon was drawn because Ted Cruz 'uses his children as props', which most certainly is true.

still that's not something one does, making fun of someones four, five, six year old just because you don't like their politics, is a sad pathetic excuse of a human. even for liberal rag journalist.

Cruz is the one who inserted them into the race. It may be poor taste, however, he made them fair game. Satire cartoons are going to be involved. Counters to claims are going to be made. You don't want your daughters targeted don't use them. Cruz wanted this to happen btw. His camp was high fiving when they saw the cartoon. Smart yet simple politics. That is why i personally would have picked my symbols a little more carefully for the cartoon

originally posted by: Tardacus
I haven`t been following his campaign close enough to know if he is using his daughters to gain support, or not, but him using the cartoon to raise money is equally as tasteless and classless as the cartoon itself.

Exactly. He's not only using his children once again, he's using the SJWs of the Republican party, and their offense and righteous indignation, to get money from them.

All this talk from the right about "political correctness" and SJWs on the left, applies 100% to the right as well. Political incorrectness is all well and good, as long as it's someone on the right doing it. But making a cartoon about someone's children is about as politically incorrect as it gets. And since it's coming from the left, it's simply unacceptable!

LOL!

By the way, I'm for freedom every time. I may not like what someone says, but I'll support their right to say it.

So, when I look at the cartoon I don't make any obvious connection to his daughters.

I don't even "get" the cartoon beyond the play on words with "Santa Cruz".

It would have been funnier to make a California, actual Santa Cruz joke (like the place)

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Just because the candidate includes them in photo-ops is not grounds to ridicule the children, or spouse (assuming they are staying clear of the campaign trail.)

If the family member is actively stumping for the politician, in my opinion what they say or do while involved is totally fair game. Case in point, Michelle O's 'first time to be proud as an American' and 'Obama will change our history'. To my knowledge his daughters have steered clear of politics, and should be left alone. (Of course we know that tasteless jokes occur in comment sections, sadly this is the internet and a-holes are everywhere.)

History has shown that the liberal media has no problem going after the non-campaigning family members of Republicans/Conservatives. They can freely be portrayed as Cruz' kids have, or get 'knocked up at a baseball game" (Palin), or be questioned as the wrong skin color when adopted (Romney), or be ridiculed for having down's syndrome (Palin again), or produce disgusting caption contests for pictures of their kids (Santorum)... I could find more examples but that would mean google searching into the festering pit that is 'tolerant progressivism.'

He is using them for more than photo ops. Also, this is still extremely mild compared historically

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So why not have them be little kids on a leash? It projects the same imagery without denigrating the children to animals. Surely you see your flawed logic.

a reply to: infolurker

Where's the funny part?

originally posted by: PresidentCamacho
a reply to: ReadLeader

Just imagine the outrage if this was Obama's daughters.

But because of Cruz's ethnicity and his political party the SJW's who would go nuts over this kind of stuff just brush it off.

Oh please...have you even looked at the picture and the context? If it was a picture of the Obamas as monkeys, drawn to I'm sure people would find it offensive, as there are a lot of SIJ's who believe Black people are essentially talking monkeys. This picture is a commentary on a man who's doing the "DANCE MONKEY, DANCE" thing with his children for his political campaign (and then feigns his own inner SJW, and yet again uses his children as "dancing monkeys" with his "boo-hoo, give me more money because the big bad wibberulz are meanies."

The commentary had nothing to do with his daughters, and everything to do with his disgusting, shameless pimping of his daughters.

a reply to: Cypress

As I showed earlier Obama did the same thing. All he talked about while running for president was how awesome of a family guy he was and how his daughters help shape his political view. Yet he still regularly requests to "leave them out of it". I agree with him they should be left out of it. They didn't choose the life he chose. He pushed them into and and leveraged them for political gain every chance he could.

Cruz is doing the same thing. So sure, put his kids in a cartoon, don't turn them into monkeys.

Quote from the Post's Editorial page Editor:

The cartoon — which portrayed Cruz in a Santa outfit with an organ-grinder and daughters Catherine, 4, and Caroline, 7, as monkeys — was replaced by a note from editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, explaining that it had generally been the Post's policy "to leave children out of it."

Hiatt said: "I failed to look at this cartoon before it was published. I understand why Ann thought an exception to the policy was warranted in this case, but I do not agree."

www.nbcnews.com...

I'm very familiar with this industry. Believe me when I say, around this time of year, deadlines get shorter and staff get sloppier and more sparse.
If things in this industry fall through the cracks or get overlooked by editors...this time of year is when it generally happens.

a reply to: Cypress

no he didn't put them in to be portrayed as monkeys. he put them in to show that he has a family and his daughters love him for who he is. children can not help who or what their parents are, they just love them. some even when their parents treat them like trash.

and i like how your a mind reader, i suppose every other politician democrat or republican, liberal or conservative who show their family enjoying themselves together as a family, is just waiting for some a@@wipe cartoonist that doesn't like their politics to make fun of them, do they can be on the front page and maybe score some points with the electorate.

please.

It's a cartoon, something we might have to remind ourselves every now and then.

I understand the desire to utilize the PC scare tactics of the left—they have been proven to work and are able to apply political pressure time and time again—but this cartoon is laughable.

I didn't find that particular cartoon that offensive but as a rule of thumb you should leave family members out of it.

If you're the guy running then all is fair game. You know you're going to get blasted and lampooned for a full year nonstop. But your family should be off limits.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvillerBob

What's this "off-limits" nonsense? We have free speech in this country. Nothing is ever "off-limits". Clearly BenevolentHeretic's post directly above yours contradicts everything you just said there. Using Obama's children in a political cartoon was most certainly NOT off-limits.

I believe it should be a matter of respect that politicians and media leave the kids out of it. We cannot stop free-speech, but we can choose to be above that sort of tactic.

Yea me too. Like I said, it was a low blow and uncalled for, but it certainly isn't off limits or anything.

a reply to: raymundoko

Ugh... Fine. You win. The left is evil and the right NEVER does # like that. That's what you wanted to hear right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your bias is showing again. Nothing I posted indicated that I think the "right" never does anything like that, if in "that" you mean inject Obama's children into rhetoric. You've just committed a logical fallacy to deflect.

I simply asked the question where in those images were Obama's children portrayed as animals? For anyone to think the images linked are even in the same group is blatant partisan hackery.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The overwhelming percentage of syndicated political cartoonists in the U.S. are liberal (although the late Jeff MacNelly was one of the best and leaned conservative IMO)...So naturally, at least where political cartoons are concerned, the left will be poking fun at the Right much more often.