Robert Foster, GOP governor candidate, denies woman reporter access because of her gender

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if people on the right had more confidence that reporters were not "secret democratic party political advocates", they might be more open to closed door meetings of people of the opposite sex.

Change the perception that they're not cheerleading for the DNC, but that is going to be hard to change if they only consume GOP positive media.

Hmmm... we have ample examples of the media acting as DNC advocates........especially in the past two years.

I remember reading about cozy relationships that were revealed as a result of the Podesta emails leaked, for example.

And, there is this.....

There is a pretty substantial symbiotic relationship between the political left in Washington and the media. While a few people went from the media to the Bush Administration, it was never like it was with Obama.

Jay Carney went from Time to the White House press secretary's office. Shailagh Murray went from the Washington Post to the Veep's office while married to Neil King at the Wall Street Journal. Neil King has left the Wall Street Journal to work for Fusion GPS. Linda Douglass went from ABC News to the White House and then the Atlantic. Jill Zuckman went from the Chicago Tribune to the Obama Administration's Transportation Department. Douglas Frantz went from the Washington Post to the State Department and Stephen Barr went from the Post to the Labor Department.

Ruth Marcus, who heads the Washington Post Editorial Board, is married to the Obama Administration's former Federal Trade Commission Chairman. Jonathan Allen had been at the Politico before going to work for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then back to Politico before going to the left leaning Vox. Now he is at NBC News. Andy Barr worked for the Politico before leaving for Democrat politics. Michael Scherer was at both Salon and Mother Jones before going to Time. Laura Rozen was at Mother Jones and the American Prospect before Foreign Policy magazine. Even Nate Silver had started out at Daily Kos. Then, of course, there is Matthew Dowd, who worked for scores of Democrats before working for George Bush. That, though he later washed his hands of Bush, bought him street credibility with ABC News to become its senior politically analyst alongside George Stephanopoulos, formerly of the Clinton Administration.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/12/15/the_medias_democratic_ties_135794.html

Fox News, OANN and Breitbart are more egregious than any of these examples.

Fake news hon, fake news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

This is like f-ing sharia law. Disgusting and indefensible.

Not even close.

If she doesn't want to have another male colleague present, she can refuse the interview. Simple.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything she doesn't want to do.

Did you even read that post before you hit "submit"?

Tell me how that's NOT a taliban policy.

You are seriously in need of psychiatric help. Wow.
-DP

NP-so your answer when someone asks you to explain how this GOP candidate's policy differs from the Taliban's restrictions on women is to hurl insults?

That you can equate a man saying he doesn’t want to be alone with a particular woman, to the TALIBAN’s medieval restrictions on all women says more about you than any insult ever could.

So ... did you not read the article? Or are you saying Foster is lying? He specifically said that this was not about a particular woman but that he is following the policy of a Christian fundamentalist regarding treatment of all women.

Where did the article state this?
He did say this rule is out of respect for his wife.

Why would his wife care if he met alone, for example, with a 90 year old grandma?

Still no answer to this.

Folks like this don't think a 90 year old is a "woman" - "woman" to them means someone they would like to f*ck.

So they could be a little less stringent with their chaperone requirement. Any woman who is beyond the scope of what they think is f*ckable should be able to meet alone with them, right?

Right? I mean, if we're going to say that a straight man can meet alone with another straight man because no one would believe the one would assault the other if that claim arose, then surely it should be fine for a straight man to meet with a woman who was outside his definition of attractive, because then no one would ever believe any accusations. I mean, Trump himself told us that he wouldn't have assaulted Jean Carroll because she wasn't his type.

Can you name one instance in which a man falsely accused another man of sexual assault? No? Didn't think so.

No, but there are plenty of cases where men have sexually harassed and raped women. So I think that men shouldn't even be allowed to be politicians or executives. Only women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He said she'd have to bring a male chaperone if she wanted to interview him

https://mississippitoday.org/2019/07/09/robert-foster-gop-governor-candidate-denies-woman-reporter-access-because-of-her-gender/

In recent weeks, in an attempt to better inform readers about candidates in the upcoming Republican gubernatorial primary, Mississippi Today has asked to shadow each contender seeking the GOP nomination.

Bill Waller, a former state supreme court chief justice, and Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves agreed to ride alongs with Mississippi Today reporter Adam Ganucheau.

The other candidate — state Rep. Robert Foster, R-Hernando — declined, however, because I am a woman.

In two phone calls this week, Colton Robison, Foster’s campaign director, said a male colleague would need to accompany this reporter on an upcoming 15-hour campaign trip because they believed the optics of the candidate with a woman, even a working reporter, could be used in a smear campaign to insinuate an extramarital affair.

On Twitter this smug POS said it was "out of respect for his wife"

https://twitter.com/RobertFoster4MS/status/1148791254513258496

Before our decision to run, my wife and I made a commitment to follow the “Billy Graham Rule”, which is to avoid any situation that may evoke suspicion or compromise of our marriage. I am sorry Ms. Campbell doesn’t share these views, but my decision was out of respect of my wife.

But certainly these Republican men aren't trying to deny women full agency over our lives - the right to be complete participants in public life, and in the workplace.

Can’t fault him for honoring his wife.

Case dismissed.

If “honoring” his wife means implying that a professional women are lying sloots bent on destroying his reputation, then it’s not really honoring her so much as it’s fundamentalist virtue signaling. It’s misogyny.

Frankly, I really do think the guy is saying he can’t be trusted and we should oblige him by locking him up.

DP. You have serious issues. Plus, an over-fondness for the word "misogyny." It's clear you really have no clue what the word means.

When you have to insult someone to make a point...

This is misogyny. I think it’s you who doesn’t understand the word or the sordid world of the fundamentalists. Their hatred of women (that’s the bare bones meaning of “misogyny,” FYI) is rooted in their misinterpretation of the Bible, in their belief that women are lesser beings, made literally by God from Adam’s rib, meant to be lesser and suffer for the rest of human times because of Eve’s disobedience. Truly. This is what they believe. They believe women should be guarding the hearth m, although since Phyllis Schlafly, advancing the retrograde political causes they espouse is acceptable too.

So they take the tack that women who do not share their beliefs are jezebels and need to be isolated. The assumption that they’ll all just start sexing the menfolk or just make such stories up is rooted in their belief that women can’t be trusted. THAT’S MISOGYNY. It’s also religious discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Well, as I keep observing: keep it up Republicans. You're doing a great job of repelling women from your party. Just keep trying to control and exclude us. See where it gets you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

What exactly do you think it means to say that women are so untrustworthy that a reporter can't interview a man running to be governor without a chaperone tagging along to ensure she doesn't falsely accuse him of rape? Do you think that society has room for women to be, say, elected officials? Lawyers? Doctors? Reporters? How do you think that works, exactly?

You do realize this is ONE man's policy, right? And while I agree with and support his decision, it doesn't mean our society has somehow adopted this rule. You need to calm down.

Um, the vice president also has this policy. It was publicized fairly widely a few years ago.

Yes - so *TWO* men! The horror. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and find it amusing how outraged some of you are.

I truly hope you’re a woman who has to face this at work and it holds back your career because you always need a chaperone and the men in your office exclude you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, as I keep observing: keep it up Republicans. You're doing a great job of repelling women from your party. Just keep trying to control and exclude us. See where it gets you.

So funny! I didn't consider myself a "Republican" until a few years ago when I started reading DCUM and was appalled by the liberal mindset I see in action here. I'm a woman, btw - and now a proud Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

What exactly do you think it means to say that women are so untrustworthy that a reporter can't interview a man running to be governor without a chaperone tagging along to ensure she doesn't falsely accuse him of rape? Do you think that society has room for women to be, say, elected officials? Lawyers? Doctors? Reporters? How do you think that works, exactly?

You do realize this is ONE man's policy, right? And while I agree with and support his decision, it doesn't mean our society has somehow adopted this rule. You need to calm down.

Um, the vice president also has this policy. It was publicized fairly widely a few years ago.

Yes - so *TWO* men! The horror. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and find it amusing how outraged some of you are.

I truly hope you’re a woman who has to face this at work and it holds back your career because you always need a chaperone and the men in your office exclude you.

I am a woman and I haven't encountered this exact situation, but I do notice that all the employees in my office - regardless of gender - keep their doors open when meeting privately with someone of the opposite sex. As do I. That's simply common sense, something many of you seem to lack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

What exactly do you think it means to say that women are so untrustworthy that a reporter can't interview a man running to be governor without a chaperone tagging along to ensure she doesn't falsely accuse him of rape? Do you think that society has room for women to be, say, elected officials? Lawyers? Doctors? Reporters? How do you think that works, exactly?

You do realize this is ONE man's policy, right? And while I agree with and support his decision, it doesn't mean our society has somehow adopted this rule. You need to calm down.

Um, the vice president also has this policy. It was publicized fairly widely a few years ago.

Yes - so *TWO* men! The horror. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and find it amusing how outraged some of you are.

I truly hope you’re a woman who has to face this at work and it holds back your career because you always need a chaperone and the men in your office exclude you.

I am a woman and I haven't encountered this exact situation, but I do notice that all the employees in my office - regardless of gender - keep their doors open when meeting privately with someone of the opposite sex. As do I. That's simply common sense, something many of you seem to lack.

Or it suggests you work in a department with nothing very important going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as I keep observing: keep it up Republicans. You're doing a great job of repelling women from your party. Just keep trying to control and exclude us. See where it gets you.

So funny! I didn't consider myself a "Republican" until a few years ago when I started reading DCUM and was appalled by the liberal mindset I see in action here. I'm a woman, btw - and now a proud Republican.

If reading DCHM is how you inform your political allegiances, then I’m glad you’re not Dem. Buh-bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

What exactly do you think it means to say that women are so untrustworthy that a reporter can't interview a man running to be governor without a chaperone tagging along to ensure she doesn't falsely accuse him of rape? Do you think that society has room for women to be, say, elected officials? Lawyers? Doctors? Reporters? How do you think that works, exactly?

You do realize this is ONE man's policy, right? And while I agree with and support his decision, it doesn't mean our society has somehow adopted this rule. You need to calm down.

Um, the vice president also has this policy. It was publicized fairly widely a few years ago.

Yes - so *TWO* men! The horror. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and find it amusing how outraged some of you are.

I truly hope you’re a woman who has to face this at work and it holds back your career because you always need a chaperone and the men in your office exclude you.

I am a woman and I haven't encountered this exact situation, but I do notice that all the employees in my office - regardless of gender - keep their doors open when meeting privately with someone of the opposite sex. As do I. That's simply common sense, something many of you seem to lack.

Sounds like no one ever has anything really important and confidential to say to one another. Do the men close the doors when they meet alone? How do you know they’re not taking about you and plotting to prevent you from getting promotions?

What if your male boss is giving you your performance review and it’s negative - you want the door wide open so anyone can overheat it? But a male employee gets privacy so no one knows.

If your male colleague was working on a confidential project he would never be able to bring you into it because he couldn’t have a closed door confidential meeting just with you.

My 68 year old boss will sometimes meet with her 28 year old male staff assistant behind closed doors as she discusses personnel matters with him that others shouldn’t overhear. No one has ever had an indecent thought about that

Sorry your career is being held back in ways you’re not even aware of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

What exactly do you think it means to say that women are so untrustworthy that a reporter can't interview a man running to be governor without a chaperone tagging along to ensure she doesn't falsely accuse him of rape? Do you think that society has room for women to be, say, elected officials? Lawyers? Doctors? Reporters? How do you think that works, exactly?

You do realize this is ONE man's policy, right? And while I agree with and support his decision, it doesn't mean our society has somehow adopted this rule. You need to calm down.

Um, the vice president also has this policy. It was publicized fairly widely a few years ago.

Yes - so *TWO* men! The horror. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and find it amusing how outraged some of you are.

I truly hope you’re a woman who has to face this at work and it holds back your career because you always need a chaperone and the men in your office exclude you.

I am a woman and I haven't encountered this exact situation, but I do notice that all the employees in my office - regardless of gender - keep their doors open when meeting privately with someone of the opposite sex. As do I. That's simply common sense, something many of you seem to lack.

Sounds like no one ever has anything really important and confidential to say to one another. Do the men close the doors when they meet alone? How do you know they’re not taking about you and plotting to prevent you from getting promotions?

What if your male boss is giving you your performance review and it’s negative - you want the door wide open so anyone can overheat it? But a male employee gets privacy so no one knows.

If your male colleague was working on a confidential project he would never be able to bring you into it because he couldn’t have a closed door confidential meeting just with you.

My 68 year old boss will sometimes meet with her 28 year old male staff assistant behind closed doors as she discusses personnel matters with him that others shouldn’t overhear. No one has ever had an indecent thought about that

Sorry your career is being held back in ways you’re not even aware of.

If you go through life with the perception that you are a victim...... others will perceive you as..... a victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

What exactly do you think it means to say that women are so untrustworthy that a reporter can't interview a man running to be governor without a chaperone tagging along to ensure she doesn't falsely accuse him of rape? Do you think that society has room for women to be, say, elected officials? Lawyers? Doctors? Reporters? How do you think that works, exactly?

You do realize this is ONE man's policy, right? And while I agree with and support his decision, it doesn't mean our society has somehow adopted this rule. You need to calm down.

Um, the vice president also has this policy. It was publicized fairly widely a few years ago.

Yes - so *TWO* men! The horror. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and find it amusing how outraged some of you are.

I truly hope you’re a woman who has to face this at work and it holds back your career because you always need a chaperone and the men in your office exclude you.

I am a woman and I haven't encountered this exact situation, but I do notice that all the employees in my office - regardless of gender - keep their doors open when meeting privately with someone of the opposite sex. As do I. That's simply common sense, something many of you seem to lack.

Sounds like no one ever has anything really important and confidential to say to one another. Do the men close the doors when they meet alone? How do you know they’re not taking about you and plotting to prevent you from getting promotions?

What if your male boss is giving you your performance review and it’s negative - you want the door wide open so anyone can overheat it? But a male employee gets privacy so no one knows.

If your male colleague was working on a confidential project he would never be able to bring you into it because he couldn’t have a closed door confidential meeting just with you.

My 68 year old boss will sometimes meet with her 28 year old male staff assistant behind closed doors as she discusses personnel matters with him that others shouldn’t overhear. No one has ever had an indecent thought about that

Sorry your career is being held back in ways you’re not even aware of.

So live your life free and don’t care what you fear others are thinking. Go ahead and have that meeting with your opposite sex colleague behind closed doors so you can discuss things frankly and because you know nothing untoward now gong on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

if you need a babysitter to keep you from raping women then you are not fit to be holding public office or be in a leadership position

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

if you need a babysitter to keep you from raping women then you are not fit to be holding public office or be in a leadership position

Interesting to see your "take" on this story. And, it is your "take" that is the very reason his decision is a wise one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

if you need a babysitter to keep you from raping women then you are not fit to be holding public office or be in a leadership position

Interesting to see your "take" on this story. And, it is your "take" that is the very reason his decision is a wise one.

Because he needs a babysitter to keep him from assaulting women?

--DP