Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist slur? I didn't know Cruz was black!

Are you suggesting that racism can only be against blacks?

The macaca guy was not black either, and that comment cost Allen the election, and rightfully so (I'm a conservative ), .

Also, there is a difference between what nuts like Beck and other loonies say and what is suitable for print in a mainstream paper like the WP. All candidates use their children as election props. They are still, nonetheless, OFF LIMITS.

It was a racial slur against a dark-complexioned man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. Cruz is right. The cartoon was out of line.

Those are small kids.

That said, he also should stop using them as props, IMHO. But, really, the cartoon was ridiculous.

As for Jeff, I don't see what political correctness has anything to do with this.

What don't you understand? It isn't PC to use children to score political points. Republicans rant constantly about being against PC culture. You can't cherry-pick what you're PC about without it undermining your objection to being PC. Face it. Everyone want PC culture when it comes to their own identity group or interests. Jeff was pointing out RepublicN hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was in poor taste because I think kids should be left out of political campaigns. Yes, Cruz uses them as campaign props and I judge him for that, but the Post doesn't have to dignify it with a commentary. That said, the cartoon didn't make fun of Cruz's kids, it made fun of Cruz for using his kids. Kind of like how he's using them now in this mock outrage to drum up more fundraising. So I don't judge the Post too harshly for running it, I can see why they might have fallen on that side of the judgment call.

+1

I think it says something if you can't understand this difference

There's no difference. The cartoon is a metaphor for his actions, right? Therefore, you're using concrete imagery to express that connection - using his kids to further his career. So he's in charge of two monkeys on leashes. His children are STILL the monkeys, which means they are nothing more than animals he's training for purposes of winning this election.

The cartoon suggested he was treating (or training) his kids as just a means to further his career. I still think the cartoon shouldn't have run but I do think you can't have it both ways-- use your kids for political purposes and then complain if people point out you are doing that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was in poor taste because I think kids should be left out of political campaigns. Yes, Cruz uses them as campaign props and I judge him for that, but the Post doesn't have to dignify it with a commentary. That said, the cartoon didn't make fun of Cruz's kids, it made fun of Cruz for using his kids. Kind of like how he's using them now in this mock outrage to drum up more fundraising. So I don't judge the Post too harshly for running it, I can see why they might have fallen on that side of the judgment call.

+1

I think it says something if you can't understand this difference

There's no difference. The cartoon is a metaphor for his actions, right? Therefore, you're using concrete imagery to express that connection - using his kids to further his career. So he's in charge of two monkeys on leashes. His children are STILL the monkeys, which means they are nothing more than animals he's training for purposes of winning this election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist slur? I didn't know Cruz was black!

Are you suggesting that racism can only be against blacks?

No, depictions of blacks as monkeys has been common tactic of white supremacists. They are constantly creating disgusting cartoons and photoshopped images of Barack and Michele Obama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist slur? I didn't know Cruz was black!

Are you suggesting that racism can only be against blacks?

The macaca guy was not black either, and that comment cost Allen the election, and rightfully so (I'm a conservative ), .

Also, there is a difference between what nuts like Beck and other loonies say and what is suitable for print in a mainstream paper like the WP. All candidates use their children as election props. They are still, nonetheless, OFF LIMITS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist slur? I didn't know Cruz was black!

Are you suggesting that racism can only be against blacks?

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. Cruz is right. The cartoon was out of line.

Those are small kids.

That said, he also should stop using them as props, IMHO. But, really, the cartoon was ridiculous.

As for Jeff, I don't see what political correctness has anything to do with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist slur? I didn't know Cruz was black!

Are you suggesting that racism can only be against blacks?

Anonymous wrote:Racist slur? I didn't know Cruz was black!

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican who will vote for Cruz if he is the nominee. I think it's obvious that all politicians use their kids in ads, however, they're normally just there to strengthen the family-man or family-woman image. Cruz went a tad bit further having his daughter comically insult his potential opponent. I still think the ad was funny (watch it if you haven't already), but since they were given political lines, it is reasonable to argue that some minor backlash is justified.

On the other hand, depicting them as monkeys, especially when that's traditionally a racist slur of sorts, is so far beyond the level of acceptability that the old Wash Post hag should be fired. That's what would happen if someone drew Sasha as a monkey. She should also be fired because she's simply not funny. Nobody even knew who she was before this. All her cartoons require elaborate explanation, and this was no exception. If you need to explain a cartoon, then you've already lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was in poor taste because I think kids should be left out of political campaigns. Yes, Cruz uses them as campaign props and I judge him for that, but the Post doesn't have to dignify it with a commentary. That said, the cartoon didn't make fun of Cruz's kids, it made fun of Cruz for using his kids. Kind of like how he's using them now in this mock outrage to drum up more fundraising. So I don't judge the Post too harshly for running it, I can see why they might have fallen on that side of the judgment call.

+1

I think it says something if you can't understand this difference