Howie Cowie repeats his error for Calvitto

In the Rapid City Journal this AM, Celeste Calvitto's column covers the Gordon Howie "I should have never have said that gaffe" where he refers to women as cows.
"We place value on life in South Dakota, and even with a mother cow, as soon as you can demonstrate she is pregnant, an even higher value is placed just because she is pregnant," Howie said. "I said that, and it was a clumsy way to make a point. I probably deserve to be beat upon the head and shoulders for it."
Howie said he "enrages" people who don't share his views "because I just don't mince words. I don't choose them well, either. ... Any person who really knows who I am knows I don't place women and livestock on the same level."
Read it all here (And you should have already, since I've told you to get a subscription like I have).

Gordon Howie enrages people who don't share his views? How about "he irritates people with his stupid ignorance?"

On a purely political standpoint, implying that women are akin to cows just makes them mad. And mad women will not vote for you.

I'm someone who has said before, and will continue to say, that we need more women elected to office in the Republican party. And I have 5 daughters whom I would like to be active Republicans in the party as they mature.

And having Gordon Howie being such an unabashed boob is not helping the GOP cause when he says stupid things like that.

(Consider that the SDWC beating you about the head and shoulders).


Anonymous said…
From a purely intellectual standpoint rather than a purely political standpoint
, where in the world did you learn to read? As quoted, Gordon’s statement was "We place value on life in South Dakota, and even with a mother cow, as soon as you can demonstrate she is pregnant, an even higher value is placed just because she is pregnant." Unless you maintain that Gordon’s statement was different from that quoted, must you be so politically correct that his statement can somehow be misconstrued as “insensitive”? By what stretch of an overactive imagination does his statement imply that women are akin to cows? I would be delighted if all five of your daughters enter the Republican party when they mature, but to deliberately misconstrue the meaning of someone’s statement because you happen to disagree does not set high standards in logic, and I would maintain that the “unabashed boob” might be suitable for your very own lapel.

Gary Howie

PS Gordon certainly doesn’t claim to be perfect, and my own views may actually be closer to yours than to his on some topics. Yet I will actively support Gordon because I know him well, admire what he is and what he has accomplished, and consider myself very fortunate to be his brother. I place a very high value on integrity and a willingness to be candid, and I have no need to deliberately misconstrue the intent or statements of those with whom I disagree. Shouldn't we all lean (Oh, my! By your standards I may now be disparaging the weight-challenged) a little more that way?
PP said…
Aside from the fact you're view is biased as anyone would be for a sibling they would defend, you're making a lot of assumptions.

First, you have no idea of how conservative I am, or are not. I suspect I'm quite a bit more conservative than you or your brother are, but I also try to be objective in how I look at politics. (18 years of involvement in SD Republican politics have taught me that much).

Secondly, you're assuming that examining the statement "intellectually" means diddly. Because it doesn't. Anyone who reads it, or hears it, keys in on two concepts: cows and women. And that's it. It was a debate about pregnancy, and he brought a cattle into it.

I've spoken with women, and leaders in the life movement in SD, and in all cases, they absolutely cringe that someone would let that come out of their mouth. Because the only thing that will be remembered is that he compared women to cows.

And from a political standpoint, that's what any opposition (R or D) is going to use against him - and ANY time he tries to defend it, he's going to discuss the statement again (as he did with Celeste Calvitto)and everyone will become that much more acquainted with it.
Anonymous said…
I do not agree with the premise that my academic and intellectual credentials vanish because I choose to carefully read my brother's statement. Your political credentials far exceed mine, however, and I certainly am willing to cede your point (albeit that does not say much for the voters if you are correct, as I suspect you may be). After those who would oppose my brother regardless of his comment have gasped their politically correct gasps and recovered from their politically correct faints, perhaps the opportunity to explain his statement will serve Gordon’s views quite well. As I think we each clearly understand, his point would be that, if we ascribe increased value just to a calf fetus, how can we possibly not ascribe increased value to a human fetus? (If you are correct, I have now maligned all humans because I use “calf” and “human” in the same sentence. Clearly I would not be a good politician.) I’m not looking for, nor do I have time for, a fight. The pro-life and pro-abortion issues are important and merit serious discussion. However, maintaining that Gordon compared women to cows is simply not correct, and I suspect that a backlash (against those who appear to be making a claim so incredulous) is possible. Insofar as politics is concerned, I suspect that those who would not vote for Gordon based on that statement would not have voted for him anyway. Gordon does not consider himself to be a career politician and he certainly doesn’t fit that mold. Anyone who listens will know exactly where he stands, whatever political hay they may choose to make of that stand. As a citizen, he is doing his duty, and I personally like the concept of citizen representatives, especially when they are not attorneys (whose profession is more than adequately represented) but rather businesspersons and ranchers.
Anonymous said…
As a district 30 voter, one who has voted for Gordon twice and intends to vote for him in the future, I don't know that the statement will have that much of an impact. Some will understand it for what it was intended. And, some will ridicule it because they don't like Gordon's positions, but at the end of the day, Gordon has good intentions and the best interests of the people he represents at heart. That is what really matters with the voters of District 30.
TSchnabel said…
I'm not sure what kind of an over-active intellectual imagination would allow someone to misconstrue this statement to a comparison between cows and women. When reading this statement for the first time, the primary words that stand out to me, as with every other South Dakota voter I have talked to, are the words value and life. Now, I suppose that if you take an adversarial position to placing value on life, you would find yourself digging a little deeper in an attempt to create a conflict that doesn't exist. I don't know PP from Adam and my hunch is that PP doesn't really know Gordon Howie very well either. Perhaps if PP would care to discuss issues on a little more intellectual level, then PP would would find out exactly the kind of person that Gordon Howie is and why so many South Dakota voters supported him. You need to take this statement at face value and appreciate it as a desire to place value on human life--nothing more-nothing less. There is no comparison between cows and women--only the value of life.
PP said…
why are 2 out of 3 howie defenders attempting to use an "intellectual" analysis?

Looking at it intellectually is moot. It's how it's going to be viewed by voters on a knee-jerk basis that he needs to worry about.

That, and what I hear through the grapevine the dems are planning on hitting him with. I hear it's a doozy.

And the majority of run of the mill voters I've spoken with (and as mentioned, I asked women and leaders in the SD pro-life movement) they don't think it was a smart thing.

The topic at hand was "Human Abortion," which typically involved human females. The illustrative situation that Gordon invoked involved that value of cattle.

Seems to me that the value of pregnant cows was used to illustrate why we should value unborn human life (as typically carried by women).

And as my own wife commented when I asked her opinion, she said "trust me, women don't like to be compared with cows."

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.