I rarely defend Ken Cuccinelli.  In fact, I can’t remember ever doing it but once before and I don’t really remember why I defended him, but I did.  This time, I actually have to feel badly for him.  How would YOU like to have to follow this clown?

According to the Washington Post, the following events occurred before Cuccinelli addressed the crowd:

People brought yellow lawn chairs with the motto “Don’t tread on me,” and at least one tricorner hat was visible in the crowd. John Whitbeck, 10th Congressional District Republican Committee chairman, raised eyebrows when he kicked off the festivities by telling a joke in which the head of the Jewish religion presented the pope with a long, elaborate document that the Jewish leader said was a bill for the last supper.

The crowd laughed uproariously. But American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal political action committee, tweeted about Whitbeck’s “anti-Semitic” opener and the state Democratic Party later circulated a video of the joke.

Cuccinelli was not yet on stage at the time the joke was told, and his campaign later distanced him from the remarks.

 

Why would anyone think it was appropriate to tell such a stupid joke to a bunch of people you don’t know?  The anti-Semitic joke was offensive and basically, not even funny.    I figure getting close to this guy is like having a big chunk of kryptonite in your pocket.

Whitbeck not only owes Cuccinelli an apology but also everyone in attendance an apology.  How embarrassing.  Whitbeck brings a new dimension to thinking about that Big Republican tent.  Whitbeck is from Loudoun County.

Cuccinelli later denied even knowing Whitbeck and who could blame him.  That is like your worst nightmare during a campaign.  Virginia Republicans should censure this guy.  He is not only  an embarrassment but also a liability–sort of a combination of Anthony Wiener and a Macaca moment.

68 Thoughts to “What WAS Whitbeck thinking?”

  1. Wolverine

    Very old joke. You can find it in toto in many places on the web. Sounds like something Mel Brooks might have done. Dems getting nervous, are they?

  2. Wolverine

    I also see the WaPO was so anxious to nail Cuccinelli that they didn’t even bother to research the actual joke itself. WaPO cheap shot.

  3. Scout

    Why would researching the joke make its telling in this setting any less reprehensible?

  4. Elena

    Wolverine, for the love of G-d, please, stop the partisan ignorance and acknowledge the complete and utter impropriety of the joke.

  5. Censored bybvbl

    Who researches jokes? And better yet, who would tell such an inappropriate joke at a public rally? And who would applaud?

  6. @Wolverine

    @Wolverine,

    Actually the Post spoke about how he distanced himself from from Whitbeck. *I* defended Cuccinelli.

    Afraid I have to totally agree with Scout and Elena.

    Why would anyone research an anti-Semitic joke? The fact that the joke has been around doesn’t make it LESS anti-Semitic or MORE funny.

    I linked to the original article. Perhaps you should reread it.

  7. Elena

    Here is where I find fault with Cuccinelli. He should have said to the audience, that was an inappropriate joke and I wish you had not shared that. Say what you will about McCain, he had the balls to stand up to that woman in the audience when she tried to say Obama had terrorist links.

    I know how hard it can be to call people out on their stupidity, but if people don’t do it, behavior won’t change.

  8. Rick Bentley

    That is offensive, and really stupid. This guy needs some type of therapy.

    Cuccinelli is so far right, so out of touch with the center, that I’m actually going to vote for the corrupt joke Democrat this time.

  9. Censored bybvbl

    Ben Tribbett has a telling post about Cuccinelli’s weaknesses – including LaCivita’s denying that Cuccinelli knew who Whitbeck was – only to have photos of Whitbeck “nominating” Cuccinelli for Guv at this year’s convention appear.

    http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/

  10. @Censored bybvbl

    Bwaaahahahahahah!!! Caught caught caught.

    I am still going to feel bad for Cuccinelli though. What a total D-bag Whitbeck was to do that to him. Cuccinelli was probably paralyzed by rage because someone in his own party did that to him.

    I would deny knowing the guy to.

    How can people not know how rude, crude and socially unacceptable telling any ethnic joke is at a political rally? It defies logic.

  11. @Rick Bentley

    Welcome. We have cookies. :mrgreen:

    BTW, great pic on facebook. Congratulations on your accomplishment.

  12. Ben does have a great post up.
    http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2013/09/does-ken-cuccinelli-have-a-disability.html

    I would question how smart Cuccinelli really is if he doesn’t address some of the serious problems arising from his tenure in office as well as his campaign.

    He seriously needs his campaign manager to retract the statement that he doesn’t know Whitbeck. Tribbett has posted the truth. Its definitely liar liar pants on fire time.

  13. Steve Thomas

    While we’re on the subject of ill-considered comments:

    From the WaPo:

    McAuliffe, meanwhile, failed to impress in his [NVT interview and even shocked some members, several board members said. When someone asked how he planned to work with people to get things done in Richmond, McAuliffe replied that he would wine and dine them.

    “I’m an Irish Catholic. I like to drink. It is what it is. We’ll go have lunch. We’ll go have drinks. We’ll work the phones. We’ll do whatever it takes to get things done,” he said…

    “Terry said, ‘I am not going to read every bill when I’m governor. I’m going to hire people to read them for me.’ It was an astonishing statement,” a board member said, quoting McAuliffe from memory.

    Cuccinelli impressed the board’s majority as a serious, detail-oriented candidate while McAuliffe seemed to wing it, according to three board members present for the interviews who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.

    “Terry was his normal, flamboyant self,” said a board member present for both interviews. “He didn’t want to get pinned down to any details. He didn’t give any details. He was all about jobs, jobs, jobs — ‘I’m just going to take care of the situation when the time comes. I’m just going to do it.’ It was all [expletive]” …

    On a question about whether Virginia should stay in something called the “open-trade-secrets pact,” Cuccinelli gave a thoroughly researched response, the person said.

    But McAuliffe answered, according to the source: “ ‘I don’t know what that is. I’ll have to look it up later.’ And then he turns back to the guy [who asked] and said ‘Well, what do you think we should do?’ And the guy says, ‘We want Virginia to stay in it.’ And then Terry says, ‘Okay, we will.’ ”

    1. Obviously he was among some folks who weren’t fans of McAuliffe. Interesting. I defended Cuccinelli over an embarrassing situation, even though I do not support him because of issues. I can see that sense of fairness isn’t being applied here.

  14. Censored bybvbl

    Good diversionary tactic.

    However, I think most women in Virginia are less concerned that McAuliffe may occasionally fly by the seat of his pants than they are about Cuccinelli’s concern about what goes on when women take theirs off.

  15. Steve Thomas

    Censored,

    Your statement is a legitimate (if not somewhat crassly articulated) election issue, and is a distinction between the two, as is the fact that Terry seems unprepared for office.

    The point of my post was not to divert. My point is that gaffes are not uncommon in a campaign, and neither side immune.

    As an Irish (former) catholic, I am offended by his remarks…and demand that Terry be excoriated as well….not really. I want this campaign to be about issues…not gotchas.

    1. As one married to a an Irish (former) Catholic, I wasn’t offended. It was self-deprecating humor. It’s one thing to make those insider jokes about yourself. Its something else to make them about someone else.

      Let’s talk about why Whitbeck would tell a joke like that in public. That is being ignored. Why was the crowd laughing? It wasn’t even a funny joke. Whitbeck is in a position of leadership. I fail to see the humor or why he would even tell a joke. Now, if he was telling a joke about Republicans, fine. Maybe a joke would have even been funny about Democrats. But making fun of Jews? How does that even fit in?

      Are party members going to censure Whitbeck’s behavior? I no longer live in the 10th but I would be writing a letter if I still did.

  16. Wolverine

    Scout — Because the actual joke is not at all like the way the WaPO reported it. The WashTimes appears to have researched it at least before running a commentary. Get off your ass and look it up for once.The joke is on all kinds of websites without an anti-semitic label.

    What I see on this blog is a bunch of hateful partisans who would use any PC set-up provided by the Dem crowd or the WaPo to stick a knife in Cuccinelli. You all stop your holier than thou crap. You’re playing dirty politics right up there with Blue Virginia.

    1. Nice try. Scout is a Republican.

      Did you watch the video? Did you hear the words coming out of his mouth? Is that not John Whitbeck? Who gives a flying flip what the real joke is. Why did that 10th district leader repeat an inappropriate joke?

      Why are you angry? You should be angry at Whitbeck for putting your candidate in an embarrassing situation.

  17. Censored bybvbl

    @Wolverine

    The actual joke is right there in the video. What part of it was dubbed or manipulated?

  18. Starryflights

    This isn’t helping Cuccinelli. He is going to get his butt handed to him in a few weeks and rightly so.

  19. Wolverine

    O.K., Elena, for the love of God, here’s a joke just for your own insulting comment:

    The scene is the Biblical Last Supper in the Upper Room. The Last Supper is the historical origin for the sacred Eucharist among Catholics and Protestants. In this scene Christ is standing and addressing his disciples, who are seated around a large table.

    In walks the waiter, who interrupts the proceedings by announcing that he is their server for the evening and asks to take their orders. Everybody tells him to wait because they are discussing something very important. Christ starts to say that someone in the room will betray him. He turns in the direction of Judas, who begins to sweat it. At which time, the waiter interrupts with “Ah, Judas! Yes, what would you like to drink?” Judas about keels over at the waiter’s sudden remark.

    In the door walks a painter with a beret, a pallet, brushes, and an easel. Christ tells the waiter that this fellow is named Da Vinci and he has been hired to paint a portrait of the group for this special occasion. Da Vinci has all the disciples move to the side of the table with Christ so he doesn’t have to paint only the backs of half of them. So they all crowd to the other side of the table.

    The last scene on the screen is the actual Da Vinci painting of the Last Supper. Only, standing behind Christ in the painting is the waiter.

    I , a Christian, thought that skit was extremely humorous. Never saw it as an insult to my faith or to the sacred Eucharist. It was just plain slapstick humor. I can’t recall anyone assaulting the performers for an anti-Christian insult.

    The waiter in the skit was a fellow named Mel Brooks, one of the greatest comics of our times. He is also Jewish on both sides of his family. Nobody to my knowledge ever asked that Mel Brooks, a Jew, be shunned for a comedy routine that made fun of an important Christian event. The guy is a nationally honored perfomer.

    Get it, Elena? Lighten up if you are insulted by an old joke. Or cut out the partisan PC crap about a joke not even told by Cuccinelli. Unless you want me to start trumpeting that the Navy Yard killer was reportedly a Democrat and an Obama supporter.

    Incidentally, what was in the old, old envelope always handed traditionally to the newly elected Pope by the Chief Rabbi of Rome and then returned unopened to the Rabbi (in the joke) was something that no one ever knew about because no one had ever opened the envelope. When the two of them finally decided to open it, they found the original bill from the caterer at the Last Supper. Funny. That’s why I said it sounded like something Mel Brooks would do. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone make an anti-semetic issue over that joke. But, then, Dems will do anything to win an election.

    Now, don’t ask me why in H this guy told that joke at all, because I wasn’t there and don’t know. But I sure am getting sick of seeing this blog start to imitate “Lowdownkell” at Blue Virginia in the area of PC nastiness.

  20. Wolverine

    Moon — Stop playing the naif. The whole thing is being used purposely by the Dems against Cuccinelli himself. They and the WaPO could care less about Whitbeck. Just another “opening” to be exploited by tossing mud.

    1. Excuse me. There is no denying that the Democrats will use it. As for the Washington Post, it looked to me like they were reporting the news, along with about 10 other state and local newspapers and periodicals.

      When someone is that blatantly anti-Semitic and is in a state leadership it is going to make the news.

      I am curious why you are so defensive, Wolverine. Is Whitbeck a personal friend of yours? Do you think his behavior was appropriate or his judgement wise?

      I am perfectly willing to point Anthony Weiner out as a loser for bad behavior( or any other liberal for that matter). Are you not able to do that for your ‘side?’

  21. Scout

    Mel Brooks can tell some jokes (by the way, he makes his living doing it) that would fall flat if told by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Richard Pryor could say some things that the Grand Kleegon of the Klan couldn’t get laughs with. The point isn’t whether the joke is old. The point is why is this dunderhead telling it at a partisan political rally in Sterling, Virginia. It’s hardly nasty to make that observation. It’s simply moronic, tasteless and probably, at least for some people, offensive behaviour. Cuccinelli was within earshot apparently, judging from the tape, and did nothing to disavow it. Bad judgement on his part, although I agree with Moon that KC was as much ambushed by it as anyone else there. But there is absolutely no context for that kind of joke in that setting. It is illustrative of how someone who nominally occupies a position of some visibility and responsibility in local GOP circles can simply not have a clue.

    NLS’s commentary is quite insightful, I think. He could have also mentioned how Cuccinelli handled (or mishandled) his putative Marine Corps veteran status. Cuccinelli still hasn’t released (to my knowledge) his DD 214, but he has had a surrogate out saying “once a Marine, always a Marine.” The same issue came up in the 2009 AG primary. It still isn’t particularly clear what Ken now says about previously claimed Marine status.

  22. Wolverine

    Oh, stop the tommyrot, Scout. Never a molehill too small to be made into a mountain, eh?

  23. Censored bybvbl

    @Wolverine

    You seems to be the one playing the naif. Your older joke’s humor lies in DaVinci painting the waiter as well as Christ and the disciples – not on Mel Brooks ethnicity or religion. Whitbeck’s joke relies on ugly stereotyping.

  24. Wolverine

    Censored — What the heck are you talking about? Actually, I always thought the original joke in question was a two-fer. The Jewish caterer’s bill always beng presented throughout the millenia, and the Christians always failing to pay their bills. Eh. Loosen up, kid.

  25. Wolverine

    Yes, Moon. Hang the fellow out to dry for telling a joke some people have decided they dislike — for certain reasons, of course, wink, wink. WaPo reporting the news. Hardy har har. You obviously know little about WaPo and Loudoun politics. Any little opening out here for those partisan writers and editors. Been that way for awhile, even before the GOP took all the BOS elections last time. No, I don’t know Whitbeck. I’ve never been in the Republican Party. I just get ticked off at dirty pissant politics, especially when they are larded with faux PC nonsense.

    1. I have probably read the Washington Post for the better part of 5 decades. I am fairly familiar with it. One had faithfully come in my house every day since …well never mind since when. Long enough that I understand the newspaper.

      You are correct. I don’t know Loudoun County politics. I will probably keep it that way also. Not interested. I have a brother who is lives in south Riding and he is liberal enough to glow in the dark.

      What do you say about all the other newspapers who reported the story?

      I simply don’t know how to say this so here it goes…people have been fired from their jobs for telling jokes like that. It was incredibly stupid and off point unless the point of the rally was to offend Jews. I don’t believe that was the case. This isn’t about PC. This was a political rally for the governor of the state, not the KKK, where that joke might have been more appropriate, in another era.

      If I were in the 10th district in the GOP, I would be hollering for that guy’s head. He obviously can’t be trusted to exercise good judgement.

      This really isn’t about the Washington Post or any other newspaper. It’s about the person who really embarrassed the party and also the party’s gubernatorial candidate.

  26. Censored bybvbl

    Wolverine, I’ll stand by my comment. Your guy Whitbeck screwed up and should also be offering an apology. He’s young enough to know better. It’s comments such as his (as local chairman) that continue to shrink the tent.

  27. Censored bybvbl

    @Wolverine

    Is it “faux PC nonsense” because old white guys can’t continue to insult women and minorities with impunity? Can’t tell the old ethnic jokes or use the same words we can use without appearing bigoted?

  28. Wolverine

    Ah, Censored, now we move from this fellow Whitebeck to all of the “old white guys” out there who tell ethnic jokes and insult women. Riiiiiiiiight! Keep talking, kid. You’ll make the case for me.

    1. I think its really just having good manners.

      So do you think its ok to tell jokes where Jews are the butt of the joke in a crowd? Do you think its polite? Smart? Funny?

      Do you think that Whitbeck helped Cuccinelli or the GOP with his behavior? Let’s look at those questions because that is really what the post is about/

  29. Wolverine

    With everything happening in this country and abroad, you still want to go on and on about one little joke in one campaign event? And you all are calling for some kind of retribution for a man you don’t even know? Sorry, that’s it for me. I’ve wasted enough time on political PC mudslinging.

    Did you hear what has fallen on Los Angeles? Boeing is going to close their huge Long Beach plant (formerly Douglas Aircraft during WW II) in 2015 and take away at least 3000 floor jobs in a place which already has 9.9% unemployment. And the new President of Iran has announced that his country will NOT develop nuclear arms. He seems to want to talk turkey with us — keep your fingers crossed. And the CDC has announced that 23,000 Americans died last year because antibiotics no longer work against certain diseases, including the invasion of an antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea which can be deadly. That’s just for starters. But, if those here prefer instead to go all political and chew over an old joke which I seriously doubt was intended as anti-semitic , well…..

  30. Yet Wolverine refuses to answer a few basic questions.

    There is a follow up story on this one. I believe Whitbeck’s political career will need a facelift.

    Actually, I think poor judgement is very important.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-gop-candidate-cuccinelli-condemns-anti-semitic-joke-by-gop-activist/2013/09/18/da8a86f2-2062-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html?hpid=z2

  31. Wolverine

    Just remember — if any of you happen to go out to dinner and the checks are all separate and you use a certain term to describe that method of payment, I, as a one-half Hollander, will track you down and make you pay dearly for using an ethnic slur. Capiche?

    1. Does dutch auction offend you also?

      I haven’t used the expression dutch since I was 20. No reason. I just always preferred that someone else pay.

  32. Wolverine

    A few basic questions? A follow-up story from WaPo?!!! Oh, my gosh, who would have thought? Absolutely unheard of! No frigging way! Why, the WaPo would never do such a thing! I mean, the great WaPo went to such an effort to verify what kind of gun was used in the Navy Yard shooting that one would never expect them to be anything but A-1 fair and balanced in their political coverage. Loudoun County must be just full of anti-semitics. The whole LCRC chock full of neo-Nazis and old Mussolini fans. Old Whitbeck is probably a secret kleagle or something.

    Horse hockey.

  33. Scout

    No, Wolve. Whitbeck is just a fool. That’s all. It hardly makes him unique, and, as Moon said from the start, Cuccinelli didn’t tell this extremely odd (given the context) joke at a public political event. Unfortunately, Whitbeck occupies a position of some visibility and importance in R circles, at least in Loudoun County, and he has been picked by Cuccinelli (or at least Cuccinelli’s handlers) as someone to put forward at the convention and then at the Sterling rally as a voice for and face of the campaign. There was a time when people who were so completely situationally unaware couldn’t get near any level of the GOP. I look forward to getting back to that.

    Mountain out of a molehill? No, I don’t think so. A hill out of a hill? Sure, I’ll cop to that as it relates to Whitbeck.

    If you’re referring to the Marine status issue, I think that one is a potential mountain. It may be nothing, but until KC gets his discharge papers out there with his tax returns, that one is lurking. They appear to have set it up, as they did in 2009, to have a surrogate take the fall if it goes blooey, but there are some beyond-moledom aspects of that.

  34. Pat.Herve

    I do find it odd that a joke like that (and his bad delivery and lack of knowledge of the Jewish Faith) is told at a political event. I am sure that some in the crowd laughed but were left wondering what the joke was.

    It was a stupid remark that was made by a politician and he should have known better. And we have seen people like this before – in all parties. Smart people would tell him that he is off color and smarter people would distance themselves from him.

    1. People also laugh when they are nervous or uncomfortable.

  35. Lyssa

    Moon-howler :
    As one married to a an Irish (former) Catholic, I wasn’t offended. It was self-deprecating humor. It’s one thing to make those insider jokes about yourself. Its something else to make them about someone else.
    Let’s talk about why Whitbeck would tell a joke like that in public. That is being ignored. Why was the crowd laughing? It wasn’t even a funny joke. Whitbeck is in a position of leadership. I fail to see the humor or why he would even tell a joke. Now, if he was telling a joke about Republicans, fine. Maybe a joke would have even been funny about Democrats. But making fun of Jews? How does that even fit in?
    Are party members going to censure Whitbeck’s behavior? I no longer live in the 10th but I would be writing a letter if I still did.

    I’m an Irish (practicing) RC and my take on McAuliffe is that he doesn’t take being Irish or Catholic seriously or respectfully and uses the stereotype as a joke. I don’t consider either my heritage or my religion a joke. And I’m sure weary of the stereotype – not offended but it sure changes my view through the kalaidascope.

    Whiteback can say what he likes, it’s entirely up to the voters to let people like Witbeck and his associates know what you think about them. Clearly Cuccinellis people don’t want him associated with Whitbeck, but its up to the individual to determine the level of sincerity of that move.

    1. As a southerner, I have learned to laugh at many of the stereotypes. Some are offensive and some aren’t to me. I usually find the ones about illiteracy and pinworms offensive, however. Fried chicken and getting dunked, not so much, even though my religion doesn’t do dunking.

      I am only part Irish (formerly) Catholic…a little more watered down than what I married. Afraid in my married case, the McAuliffe stereotype fits the family to a Tee. It was a deadly mix of New England Congregational and Irish Catholic.

  36. Rick Bentley

    Let’s talk about WHY he would tell this joke.

    My best guess is, not knowing anything about this guy, he resents “political correctness” and wants to push at the edges of acceptable behavior. Wants to use politics to push personal agendas like this. And has some animosity, maybe not burning animosirty but at least some, against Jews who he probably believes run Hollywood and the left-wing media.

    1. I never figured out why. What you have suggested sounds like a reasonable answer.

      Perhaps in his church, in context, it might, operative word, might, have been amusing. It certainly wasn’t funny at a political rally.

  37. Not Bernie Madoff

    @Moon-howler

    Moon, context is the key. Mel Brooks was cited above. A Mel Brooks comedy movie is a vastly different context than a political campaign. You expect some degree of tastelessness in entertainment. In fact, much comedy is built on saying or doing things people generally find inappropriate in most cases. Whereas ethnic or religious humor might be appreciated in some circumstances it is inappropriate in others. The Republican Party must widen and diversify its base to remain viable. To do that, it must show that it respects and values people outside of its traditional base, and communicate a message of how its policies serve their best interests also. Degrading or mocking those groups with tasteless jokes using them as the punch line is not how you go about doing that. People like Mel Brooks, Richard Pryor and Seth MacFarlane make a career of humor that many consider offensive but no one questions their right to do it. Those seeking to be elected to represent a diverse electorate must be more considerate of the feelings of those they seek to serve.

  38. Scout

    Not Bernie’s last comment is on the mark.

    Wolve, I’m still puzzled as to why, when someone tells an inappropriate joke in a completely peculiar context, the natural reaction should be to “research” the joke. I find that a completely weird response. Who would ever do such a thing? So one “researches” the joke, and finds that it was once told in a less inappropriate context by someone who might be better able, through talent, life experience, and/or ethnicity, to pull it off successfully. What does that do for us in the current situation? A person with no sense or judgement told a joke that made no sense at all in a political context. I have all the information I need to conclude that that person is, at best, someone who should have no connection with political leadership.

    Some years ago, a federal cabinet secretary told a tasteless, vulgar joke about African-Americans in a setting that I suppose he thought was private. However, the joke was overheard and reported. If there had been blogs then, I cannot imagine that anyone would have said – “oh, you need to ‘research’ the joke.” The comparison (as are all comparisons) is not a perfect one in that the joke was far more crass than Whitbeck’s, although the context was not nearly as puzzling. Nonetheless, there is nothing in the history of the Rabbi joke that makes it a positive reflection on the utterer at a political rally in Northern Virginia. The issue is what is inside Whitbeck’s head that would lead him to think: “I’m introducing a Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia today to a crowd from my county, a county whose demographics I am at least nominally familiar with, because I live here. Let’s see . . . hmmmm. Yes, here’s the ticket! An old joke about the Chief Rabbi and the Pope set against the backdrop of nearly 2000 years of controversy about the Roman Catholic church’s formerly held (but now apparently rusticated) position that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. This is perfect. It’s relevant to the campaign, it reflects the religious views of the crowd, it has roots in Republican principles, it sheds insight through humour on things of pressing political concern to Virginians as they go to the polls in A.D. 2013. I certainly am an amusing, clever fellow, if I do say so myself.”

    How does one explain anyone’s coming to that conclusion? I suspect Wolve’s flying off the handle on this is related to his devotion to Mr. Cuccinelli, but it really doesn’t have much, if anything, to do with KC other than that he missed an opportunity to make a very positive statement by jumping on Whitbeck right then and there. Think of the positive press that would have garnered. But he didn’t do that (as many decent people or at least opportunistic politicians would have done) because he had no strong, visceral reaction against the inappropriateness of the joke. KC’s spontaneous action was to ignore it and then hang back for the better part of the day as controversy built before putting out a prepared statement from the campaign. Too bad. Better late than never, but a huge missed opportunity to show an immediate sense of decency, sensitivity to others, and fairness.

    The central story, however, is Whitbeck, the mess inside his head and the low barriers to entry in local Republican circles.

  39. Wolverine

    Scout — I…Well, I would say that…….Hmmmm…..Perhaps one could note that….Oh, what the heck! Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha! Lad you have clearly outdone yourself in the blog bullshit department. Stay up all night to whip that one up did you?

  40. Wolverine

    Holy moley, it was a doggone joke. And this august company has a collective cow. Good thing war didn’t break out yesterday. Scout would have missed it completely.

  41. Wolverine

    Now it seems that Whitbeck may have been regaling the crowd with an anti-semitic theological lecture about the Jews killing Christ. My, oh, my…….let those eyeballs roll.

  42. @Scout
    I haven’t thought about EArl Butz for years. Mind warp!

  43. Scout

    I stayed up at least until 1737 EDT, Wolve. But to the point: Why does one “research” a joke when some dumb pol tells it in a completely nonsensical setting?

  44. Censored bybvbl

    @Wolverine

    Wolverine, multi-tasking is a skill many of us have. We can cast blame on Whitbeck, watch the daily world news (not the World Nut Daily), and whip up an omelet all at once.

  45. Elena

    So allow me to enlighten you Wolverine since you are obviously insistent on maintaining your ignorant state of being regarding this “joke”.

    For many centuries, and still probably today, Jews have been blamed for the murder of Christ. So, from my perspective and this toads ignorance, joking about the Last Supper and Jews wanting a bill is beyond stupid, it plays into the dangerous stereotype that Jews wanted Jesus dead and THAT they wanted payment for his death! You know, cause we are all a bunch of greedy “money changers” anyway. How effing stupid is that guy???

    In 1965 at the Second Vatican Council in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church took formal steps to correct this interpretation of the passion. In its document, Nostra Aetate, the Church officially repudiated both the deicide charge and all forms of anti-Semitism. Most Protestant churches followed suit, and since 1965 many Christians have worked cooperatively with Jews to correct anti-Semitic interpretations of within Christian theology. Understanding the influential role that passion plays have exercised in the spread of anti-Semitism, the Catholic Church today urges great caution in all dramatic presentations of the passion to ensure that they not furnish any impetus for anti-Semitic attitude or behavior.

    Maybe you missed the entire Mel Gibson debacle of his Passion Play, I guess anything is possible. But Mel’s subsequent anti-semitic rant was no surprise to many of us who understand the danger of this Passion Play in cinematic form.

    Wolverin, honestly, I am really surprised by your stance on this one. I believe if you were more confident in Cuccinelli as a candidate you would be able to discern what is wrong with this guys behavior at a political rally.

  46. Scout

    @Elena – I think it’s hard for people unfamiliar with that history to understand how touchy these things can be, although Wolverine is well-read and intelligent. He just went off on this one because of his loyalty to Cuccinelli. He’s missing the point about the nature of the remark and the fact that this is a reflection primarily on Whitbeck.

    Because, thanks to Wolverine, we now have found ourselves “researching” the joke, one does have to recognize that the reason Mel Brooks can make something absurdly funny out of the “bill for the Last Supper” bit is because of the evil enormity of the Church’s centuries-long theory of “taint” attaching to the role of the Jews in Christ’s death. Brooks is laughing in the face of (or, more precisely, giving the finger to) that terrible theory of history, a doctrine that has no doubt fueled infinite, unspeakable cruelties against the Jewish people in Christian-dominated lands. Brooks knows what he is doing – he wants laughs, not just for laughter’s sake, but because laughter can deflate tyrants. The entire structure of the joke is gets its gearing from the superstitions of the Church.

    Whitbeck, like a lot of people in his demographic, are oblivious to all this. I’m sure he didn’t tell the story to inspire anti-Jewish sentiment. He’s just clueless. It is his imbecility that makes this a story. That Cuccinelli was in the crowd and didn’t pounce on it says something about him, also. I’m not sure how much it says, but it does say something. It may simply be that he has no more sensitivity to or awareness of the history behind it than does Whitbeck or most insulated Americans under the age of 60+. It wouldn’t influence my vote – there are other issues more to the point. It simply leads me back to where I started this thread: Whitbeck is a fool.

    1. I got in trouble at Harvest Moon dinner last night because of Whitbeck.

      I started the ball rolling by saying that I really liked the restaurant and that I now had a new place for thanksgiving dinner.

      A person I know who was dining with us (Ok, I might just happen to be married to him) had to be a smart ass and start singing Fa LaLaLaLa like was done in the movie, The Christmas Story. My daughter and I turned on him in horror and told him to stop it. I mean GEEZ. So I said to him, ” You are a fine one to talk about what a jerk Whitbeck was after that performance.”

      With that, my daughter jumps all over me and so did my granddaughter. They thought I had said ‘wetback.’ I swore up and down I hadn’t said that…then I realized what they thought they heard….Whitbeck.

      This guy has brought me more trouble in the past couple of days than I ever thought possible. first Wolverine, then the entire dinner party. Pile on time.

      We left.

  47. Elena

    Scout,

    You succinctly stated what I was trying to impress upon Wolverine. I so prefer when we are in agreement 😉

    1. I almost always agree with Scout except over one major issue. The big one.

  48. Elena

    Scout and I also do fine, as long as we don’t talk about Sean 😉

    Is Scout anti choice?

  49. Scout

    That’s the second time you’ve mentioned that we disagree on one issue (or the big issue), Moon. I suspect that we may disagree on a few more, but, for the most part, disagreement at this site can be done fairly reasonably a very high percentage of the time. That’s a credit to you and how you run things. But what is THE big issue? I’m awfully curious.

    1. Reproductive rights is what Elena and I would call THE big issue. @Scout. You and I haven’t quarreled about it though. My feeling is, people can feel anyway about that issue they want to. Its when they start making rules for me and mine that I get testy.

      We probably do disagree on more than that but who is counting. Usually I agree with you. Now to figure out which of us should be afraid. Are my Republican roots creeping out and showing? Don’t forget, I proudly voted for Richard Nixon. I can feel my friend Censored averting her eyes from me as I speak…and not because she is proud of me either.

  50. Scout

    I’m not sure that I’m where you think I am on reproductive rights. My thoughts are fairly messy about it, having a strong personal aversion to abortion, but being continually uncertain about how the federal government can possibly find an acceptable role in controlling it without putting government right in the middle of a very sensitive and important Doc/patient relationship. I’ll send you an email on that subject, not wishing to take this thread too far off track.

    Speaking of Nixon (still off-track, but you started it), I was on a plane for much of the early part of today and was catching up on reading. Both the New Yorker and the WSJ had lengthy reviews of a new book about the US role in the India/Pakistan War in the early 1970s that resulted in the independence of Bangladesh. The book has extensive quotes from Nixon’s White House tapes as he and Kissinger talked about the US position there. Much of what they were saying was unbelievably stupid, at least from a distant vantage point. But I voted for Nixon in 1972, and worked on his 68 campaign. If RFK had lived, I might have supported him. (although I had worked very hard for Goldwater in 64, my first national campaign). I knew there needed to be a radical change from LBJ and feared that Hubert Horatio might not be enough different to suit the times. By 72, it was sort of clear that Nixon had a bunch of weirdos around him and that something quite odd had happened at the Watergate. Nonetheless, I thought he was the best candidate in 1972 and, despite everything that happened in the next couple of years, I have never regretted my vote. Nixon was a very twisted guy who nonetheless got a lot of things right. Kissinger’s fawning yes-man act is absolutely repulsive when you read the transcripts of some of these White House discussions.

    1. @Scout

      I await your email. I must warn you, my personal beliefs and political beliefs don’t always match. They aren’t inconsistent as much as they just don’t match.

      As for Nixon, he was weird and his people surrounding him were weird. (sort of reminds me of George Bush in that regard) Kissinger was and still is creepy.

      LBJ-speaking of inconsistent. Now there was one big batch of paranoia rolled into one man, with inconsistent results. I observed back in those days. No voting for the Moon. Odd how once people look past Goldwater and his states rights stance, there is renewed interest. I was way too vapid in those days to even have an opinion I think.

      Nixon would have never been accepted in today’s Republican party, I don’t think.

Comments are closed.