McCain adviser apologizes for saying that it’s sometimes ‘accurate’ to describe a woman as a ‘bitch.’
By on May 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
McCain adviser apologizes for saying that it’s sometimes ‘accurate’ to describe a woman as a ‘bitch.’
During CNN’s primary coverage on May 20, CNN senior analyst Jeff Toobin criticized a New York Times column that published a joke about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) being a “white bitch.” But CNN contributor Alex Castellanos, who is also an adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign, disagreed, saying that a woman sometimes deserves to be called a “bitch.” Yesterday on the Situation Room, Castellanos finally apologized for his remarks:
Same thing happened to me last week, last time I was on the round table, I was trying to make a point about Senator Clinton’s toughness and strength, which I respect, and I chose the wrong words and the way to say it. And I’m sorry I said it that way. It was the wrong thing.
Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I chose the wrong words and the way to say it. And I’m sorry I said it that way.
I should have called Hillary a beyotch. It’s much more cool to say it that way.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:20 amHe not only said it about Hillary, he also included other women in his phraseology. Too late for apologies, if you actually meant it you would have recanted the same day.
Alex that is why you were given a brain, to think before words coming pouring out of your mouth. Another woman basher in the McCain camp; fits right in with John.
Neanderthal’s every last one of them.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:27 amOh that’s ok. Sometimes it’s ok to refer to Republicans as murdering, sub-human, war criminals.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:35 amA gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.
- Michael Kinsley
…
it’s kinda hard to see around THAT HUGE CLINTON ELEPHANT here…
TP, if you have any say about it… judd, if you’re reading…
FIND A WAY TO GET HER OUT OF THE WAY. N O W .
May 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am.
oh, and i should add -
i come from a grand line of A-1 B!TCHES!
proud & strong. we know when it works. we know when it doesn’t.
and that b!tch doesn’t know when to quit.
and i’m saying it’s NOW. and i’m not alone.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:41 amCastellanos’ words, though aimed at Clinton, were directed at all women. The Repubs seem to think such terms (and much worse, as in what McCain called his wife), thrown at women, are totally acceptable, even funny, but Lord help anyone who hurls some inappropriate term at a Repub male.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:53 amAt least this is an apology. An apology is saying you’re sorry because what you said or did was wrong. This is as opposed to what Sen. Clinton did yesterday when she apologized if anyone was offended. That is not an apology.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pmWhen they make a practice of this kind of speech, and are shamed into apologizing for one where there was blowback, the apology means nothing.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pmBTW, CNN does not indicate that Castellano is a McCain advisor.
@C&L – CoIntelPro for Democratic Party Victory Says:
I vote with you and Xoites on this one, e4e.
Amato, Benen, Bluegal, et al… Someone should have posted it. NO one can tell me we don’t have a better blog than Huffington post. I certainly hope no one thinks it makes C&L appear to take sides.
as another post said, and was a lightbulb moment for me:
I’m thinking that there were strong reasons why Obama did not physically go to WVa, Ky and Tenn. They might have had to do with his security, especially if he were barnstorming around the states in a small plane within a few miles of gun owning, bitter racists [...].
(my edit)
May 24th, 2008 at 12:32 pmTrue but not necessary to be said…
May 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pmI tried to post something with a certain “A” word in it, but somehow it got ‘lost’ on the way to posting at TP..
What was the biatch thinking? hhmmmmm.
_AIO_
May 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pmWhy a Hispanic would align them-self with the GOP, is puzzling? This guy, Alex Castellanos can gloss-over his slip of the tongue, but fact that the GOP is a party void of minorities, and women. Until Republicans change there evil ways and face the real problems facing America, pundants like Castellanos speak without a voice.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:53 pmGreat post Katy,…….Blessings
May 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pmthank you, sharon… i’m needing them…
in short supply today, but my best wishes to you too!
May 24th, 2008 at 1:05 pmDeclare martial law. Arrest all Republicans.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI, too, had the thought that perhaps Obama avoided W.VA and Ky because of the rampant racism that exists in those states. Sec. Serv. may have been warned.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:36 pmNot something that would have been broadcast, would it.
Castellanos is generally reasonable. He said the wrong thing when he thought it was okay to describe Clinton as a b!tch. It was an ignorant thing to say.
He did the right thing by recanting.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pmI believe there are alot of minorities that just want most government out of their lives and they would embrace a GOP that was true to the ideal of less government.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pmBetcha those misogynistic wingnuts think “c*nt” is peachy too.
But only when she deserves it.
Feh.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pmSo, backup…again, when was the last time that a REPUBLICAN government actually got the hell out of peoples’ lives…?
Surely NOT in living memory. *eyeroll*
Last I heard, the Pukes were busy spying on Americans, sh*tcanning our civil liberties, screwing our vets and profiting MASSIVELY off their cozy little war(s).
You know, piddly stuff like that.
Yep, if I were a minority, I’d be first in line to vote Republican!!
NOT.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pmLeftside. That’s the problem and why I worded it as “a GOP that was true to the ideal of less government”.
Republicans are bracing for a huge defeat in the fall.
By spending the last dozen years trying to out pander democrats, republicans have turned into basically ‘intolerant, democrat lights’.
As more of a liberatarian, I could overlook some of the pandering to christian conservatives to get otherwise less intrusive government and lower tax burdens.
It’s pretty much over for republicans for this year. But, they need to soul search (I know, that’s funny) to remake themselves as a real contrast to democrats.
I don’t believe that Americans want less government and less taxes today. But, sometime in the future, the pendulum will swing back and many Americans will see the virtue in less government and lower taxes. When that time comes, republicans should be there, to offer less regulation, less government, lower taxes, and business friendly policies.
I don’t think parties should change there values to appeal to the latest poll numbers. There are conflicting goals that people have. Sometimes, people will want more government involvement – sometimes less.
Republicans need to figure out want their values are and defend them thru popular (and more importantly) unpopular times.
May 24th, 2008 at 3:20 pmWill the Minnesota GOP women ask for an apology? This wasn’t satire, but what he was truly thinking…
May 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pmBackup – I call bullsh*t on your crap “democrat light”. Perhaps – no, OBVIOUSLY, you haven’t been paying attention to the Democratic party the last dozen years. All that “tax and spend” crap is bogus, more of the same tired, inane and idiotic Republican talking points that have been used as pejoritives against Democrats since Newtie took out his “Contract ON America.”
It’s bullsh*t. There hasn’t ever been a Republican Party the way you describe it – not since Goldwater, have they even come close. That Republican Party is a myth. It doesn’t exist. On the contrary, since that crook Richard Nixon, the Republican Party has been the party of the elites, the wealthy, the powerful, the “haves and the have-mores” who are trying their damndest to take this country back to the so-called “Gilded Age” of the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s.
The Republicans are pining for the age of the Robber Barons, backup, where the rich were kings and the poor were slaves. No income tax, no Social Security, no help for the poor – if the poor were poor and hungry, that was just tough ol’ titty, wasn’t it? If they died, well, too damn bad. The poor were too lazy to make their fortunes, were they not?
Spare me your myth of the modern-day Republican Party. It doesn’t exist. It has never existed.
All that crap about “small government,” “fiscal responsiblity” etc. etc. etc. and ad nauseum is just doublespeak from a bunch of wealthy, corrupt, power-hungry and evil men who want it all. Literally. They want to own and rule the world – screw the poor. Screw the huddled masses. They’re sheep for the shearing and fodder for the cannons.
I believe in a better world. And Republicans have no part in it.
I’ll give you that today’s Democrats aren’t much better. But they ARE better in that at least they make some effort to care for the poor, the young and elderly, to feed the hungry, to make sure that the working people of this world have *some* rights and protections against those who would exploit them.
So spare me your pious Republican BS. It’s a fairy tale. That’s all.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pmLeftside Annie. Let me try to counter in general terms.
Most would consider the U.S. as having less government than most of the developed world. And lower tax rates. If you take Europe as an example, the average person there pays much more in taxes and doesn’t get any appreciable better standard of living.
As far as the ’screw the poor’ sentiment, I would differ only by saying that although you may feel the U.S. doesn’t support the poor, our poor have a much better standard of living than most of the poor of other countries. The U.S. also has a reputation as being the world’s most charitable country. And I could google for it, but I believe there are some stats that show those that claim to be republican are at least as personally charitable as those claiming to be progressive or liberal.
I think your belief that government can solve the world’s ills is admirable. I only believe that it doesn’t work in practise as well as it does in theory.
Governments in general seem to be much less efficient, by nature, than the marketplace.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pmAlthough liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
May 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pmList of world’s most charitable nations:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/
If those that favor less government (relatively) did it because they didn’t care about the poor, why is the U.S. on the top of the list of charitable nations?
If you believe in less government, it’s not because you don’t care about the poor. That’s fallicy that liberals would like to prepetuate.
Most people that believe in less government really believe that less government is the best environment for everyone, especially the poor.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pmThe following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:
46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=
May 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pmLeftside have greedy republican corporate types really been that bad for America’s poor.
If our poor fare better than the poor of more socialist countries, couldn’t we chalk that up to more burdensome government?
It is possible that government isn’t the panacea that many progressives believe it to be.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pmClinton, who voted for the War is not a woman…
May 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pmbackup, you fail to see that Republicans run on the premise that government IS the problem and then create the self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at Bush’s administration when it came to Hurricane Katrina and then look at those who said this was proof that government failed.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pmucsbclassics53.
There is a role for government and the Bush administration has had failures in its leadership of some of those appropriate governmental roles.
May 24th, 2008 at 6:47 pmFirst of all, backup, I do not recognize realclearpolitics as a trustworthy source. It’s a RIGHT WING outfit, exactly like FAUX.
Furthermore, you are arguing all around my statement. You never do directly rebut what I’ve said, i.e., that Republicans for the last 20 years have been all about the haves and the have mores.
Holding up the poor in the third world as an example of how wonderfully well the poor are doing here in America is comparing apples and dog crap. Yeah, maybe they’re both sort of rounded, but that’s it.
That study you cited is, again, from an extreme rightwing source, and has been thoroughly debunked as a load of garbage. Holding up the fact that a family owns a color tv has nothing at all to do with whether or not they can pay their bills today. I own a color tv, but it happens to be 24 years old. My 24 year old color tv doesn’t mean I’m well off. However, when I’m compared to a Guatamalan laborer, I live like a king.
That said, backup, when you apply AMERICAN standards – in other words, you compare Americans to Americans, things shake out a whole lot differently. The fact that people here in this nation go hungry or die from lack of medical care is our national shame. And Republican rule has only made it worse. The rich have gotten richer – and the poor have gotten poorer. The middle class is being squeezed inevitably into poverty by the borrow and spend and steal rule of the Republican elite. Just look at the statistics on inflation, gasoline prices, stagnant wages and foreclosures. None of those things affect the elite any more than a flea bite affects an elephant. But when you’re living on the edge, from paycheck to paycheck – as the majority of working Americans are these days, $5 for a gallon of milk and $4 a gallon for gasoline takes a HUGE bite out of the budget. Your kid needs his appendix out, and if you don’t have insurance, well, you’re screwed.
I don’t buy that garbage either, about conservatives giving more to charity, etc. etc. etc. If progressives ruled the world – we wouldn’t NEED charity.
That’s the difference. I don’t expect you to get it. You’re still invested in your mythical Republican. Good luck with that.
Next time, try rebutting my arguments DIRECTLY – instead of throwing up a load of rightwing hooey.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pmOh, and by the way, backup, not once have I argued that government is a cure for all ills. It isn’t.
What I DID say is that REPUBLICAN government is not the answer to anything. Unless of course, you’re in the top 1% of income. In that case, it’s heaven.
I’m arguing in favor of a government that is NOT corrupt. I’m arguing for courts that are fair, not partisan. I’m arguing for legislators who haven’t been purchased by lobbyists. I’m advocating a balance between labor and management. Balance is key.
I never said that the Democrats would bring all that. I don’t believe they can in their current incarnation, either. Any more than Republicans can.
If it were up to me, if I were Queen, I’d wipe the slate clean – and start over. Scrap the IRS. Scrap the tax code. Scrap the current welfare system. Scrap the government bureaucracy. Start over. Build it again – from the ground up. Not Democrat. Not Republican. Progressive, surely.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:59 pmYet another wholly insincere, PR-motivated, cover-your-ass Republican pseudo-apology. Yawwwwwn…
Let’s look at the words he chose to use, shall we? Notice that he only apologized for expressing the sentiments aloud. There’s nothing whatsoever in his apology to suggest that he sees anything inappropriate about the sentiments themselves.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:38 pmI wonder what other way he could find to call all women b_tches? Are there “right” words for such a thing?
May 24th, 2008 at 10:57 pmB.I.T.C.H. means Boys I’m Taking Control Here
May 25th, 2008 at 2:08 amSomeone in an earlier post mentioned the word c*nt – but originally that was not a bad word. I believe that it inherited its negativity from the early Xtians – likely during the Inquisitions – a witches c*nt. blah, blah, blah. Anyway when you say country you know where it comes from. On a side note – I performed in the Vagina Monologues a couple of times so I have not problem with the word.
May 25th, 2008 at 2:27 amLeftside Annie. I wanted you to know that I read your responses.
Your passionate and convicted. I’m obviously not going to convince you, but my main argument is that some (I suggest most) republicans think that not only is less government better for rich people, but it’s better for poor people too.
The idea may not be true, but that’s what Republicans sincerely believe. So, I would disagree that republicans don’t give a damn about poor people or are out to ’screw the poor’. We just disagree with the premise that government is going to make it better for most in the long run. I concede that government is able to narrow the wealth gap, but only by bringing the collective standard of living down. It’s just what I believe.
I could offer the Soviet Union as an example. I could offer pre market reform China as an example. I could try to convince you that government doesn’t really produce anything and that it is actually business that is the engine to prosperity, but I know I’m not going to convince you.
But, please consider, that although I understand that my ideas may be wrong, I don’t believe them out of disregard for the poor.
May 25th, 2008 at 3:58 amSo now Captain backup is one of the rich people?
You’re right, rich people do care about poor people. After all, if there weren’t poor people, who would they get to do the gardening, cleaning, driving, etc?
The poor just better not be wanting a decent education for their children, or expect to climb very far up the social or economic ladder.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:08 amgreen Says:
B.I.T.C.H. means Boys I’m Taking Control Here
good one! worth a repeat!
May 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pmZooey. When you tax the ‘rich’ people to the point they can’t hire a gardener, a cleaning service, or driver’s, who is going to employ those people? you? the government?
When you take away the incentives for people to produce – who’s going to bother? When people stop producing, where will the government get it’s revenues to do all the high minded things you want government to do?
I understand if you resent people that make alot of money. But, if people can’t afford better education or a better standard of living, does it really make sense to blame the people that provide the opportunity for the income that they do have?
Some have tried the avenue of attacking wealth to promote equality. It was the Soviet Union. If you want to bring the standard of living down so low that no one makes any more than anyone else – give it your best shot.
Rich people will figure out some other way. The people that will be the most impacted and that will resent your good intetions the most, will be resulting unemployed poor that you believe you so compassionately champion today.
In theory, I appreciate your sentiment. In reality, your class envy is naive and dangerous to the continued relative high standard living of today’s U.S. poor.
May 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm