Susan B. Komen’s Monumental “Blurt” FAIL!

By tmcbpatriot | February 8, 2012 | 3 Comments

Remember when Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” at President Obama during his State of the Union Address back in 2009? Remember the outcome of that?

A source on Rep. Joe Wilson’s campaign says his fundraising has broken $1 million — and surpassed that of his Democratic rival, Rob Miller — since his outburst of “You lie!” during President Obama’s address to Congress Wednesday.

Or what about this headline from not too long ago:

“Herman Cain Is Cashing In On His Harassment Scandal With Huge Money Bomb.” ”The Cain camp has wisely opted to capitalize on the momentum of the sexual harassment story.”

Or remember when crazy Michelle Bachmann said President Obama had “anti-American” views?

Shortly after accusing President Obama of having “anti-American views” during one cable-news appearance, for example, Bachmann took in nearly $1 million.

And this week was no different as Michigan Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra provided Super Bowl fans with a message from a Chinese woman speaking in broken english, albeit with an oddly western sounding accent, about the ills of Democratic policies. Afterwards, of course came the following story:

After a day of controversy, Hoekstra sent out a fundraising plea. “We dared to take on Debbie Stabenow and China, and the liberals are doing what they always do — crying racism,” Hoekstra writes before asking for donations.

What’s going on here? Well, the Washington Post explains it quite nicely:

In the ever-evolving world of campaign fundraising, some politicians have stumbled on yet another way to bring in buckets of cash. Let’s call it the “money blurt.”

Here’s how it works: An up-and-coming politician blurts out something incendiary, provocative or otherwise controversial. The remark bounces around the blogs and talk shows and becomes a sensation. And in the midst of it all, the politician’s fundraisers are manning the phones and raking in the donations.

Now this might seem like a no brainer to some. But to most people, this kind of thing is not often thought about. When people hear a “blurt” from a politician they either ignore it, talk about it the next day at work, or send money to the guy or gal who “blurted”…Who knew?

It reminds me of when Glen Beck interviewed Congressman Eric Massa and Massa said this:

“Congressmen spend between five and seven hours a day on the phone, begging for money. And, by the way, when you are a freshman, you have to fill out sheets of everybody you call and how much money per hour, and they have coaches to teach how to get more money from each one of your phone calls and who to call and what data points they have on them to tickle them, to make them more apt to give you money.”

I was thinking about this again this week when The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation attempted a “money blurt” and failed stupendously when they attempted to defund Planned Parenthood. While this was not your typical out-loud outrageous statement, it was nevertheless a clear message to anti-abortion supporters that the foundation will no longer support organizations that perform abortions. It was also a blatant political stunt meant to tap into the Republican evangelical wealth stream, probably heretofore untapped. And with Komen’s new Senior Vice President, and former GOP candidate for Governor Karen Handel, at the helm, consider it tapped.

The intention, I am sure, was that by publicly screwing Planned Parenthood — using a bogus argument of their being under investigation, an investigation totally invented by House Republicans — their Republican and evangelical base would come in droves donating millions to the foundation. That was the plan anyway. It was a grand attempt at a “money blurt” that might have worked. However, it was based on the false assumption that anyone else who was paying attention was completely blind.

The result, as we saw this week, was anything but. As of this writing Handel has resigned and the foundation is backpedaling faster than a bicycle about to go over a cliff. There is also no denying, with a straight face anyway, that this was anything more than a political stunt by a failed politician hoping to take advantage of her new position and to do what she said she would do if elected Governor of Georgia in 2010.

Like all “money blurts,” this was yet again a disgusting public display for all to see. The difference is that this time the offense reached more than just its intended audience. And since when is a woman’s health a political tool anyway? We are seeing that happening all too often these days, whether it be around abortion rights, contraception or the very funding of organizations that provide such services.

Whatever “investigation” Republicans pretend to be pursuing with regards to Planned Parenthood, I expect it to be as fruitful as proving Obama is not a U.S. citizen or OJ finding the real killer’s. Last I checked, abortion and contraception were legal. Until Republican’s figure out a way to change that inconvenient fact they should stick to doing what they do best — shouting nonsensical things and producing racist commercials. Leave the funding for disadvantaged women alone!

This week the Susan B. Komen Foundation turned the “money blurt” on its head. Sure they succeeded in bringing attention to themselves, but they proved that doing stupid sh*t is not the same as just saying stupid sh*t. Seems the “money blurt” favors the latter and can be quite unforgiving of the former.

Who knew?

Comments

Gary Galkin

Separating the racist,sexist, right wing from their money has become a very sophisticated psychological strategy. Koman had the formula wrong. The blurt must be directed toward someone or thing that there is already underlying hatred toward. PP just does not engender that level of hatred by anyone. I for one am thrilled that they overreached and brought attention to their cynical organization …..let’s hope that the g.o.p. continues to overreach in their war against women, the middle class, homosexuals, the environment, teachers, unions…only then will the public see them for what they are and the game will be over.
Anonymous

Susan G Komen is, on the surface, about helping women. Their message of ‘empowering women’ appeals to liberals not conservatives. I’m not sure how their new message of ‘vindictive hatred of women’ is going to get conservatives to donate to a women’s health charity. It sure won’t drive many donations from liberals.
http://profile.yahoo.com/W7S75AMDYLBAEKA566DBDXWKBQ JACKIESUE

to me the most important thing is how much money that is donated to susan g komen actually goes to women in need…about 1%
that’s what really pisses me off