Miley Cyrus rips Rick Santorum

posted at 10:00 pm on May 27, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Hey, I like “Party in the U.S.A.,” but I don’t think it’s particularly patriotic of Miley Cyrus to pop off about potential presidential candidates.

The teen pop sensation took to Twitter to ding Rick Santorum in a roundabout way Thursday.

Cyrus isn’t a fan of Urban Outfitters after stories emerged alleging that the store has copied jewelry designs, so she pointed out that the company’s president had contributed to Santorum.

“IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE NEXT THING U KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE MARRYING GOLD FISH’ – Rick Santorum UO [Urban Outfitters] contributed $13,000 to this mans campaign” tweeted Cyrus, mocking Santorum for some earlier remarks regarding gay marriage.

She also wrote about Urban Outfitters and Santorum: “Not only do they steal from artists but every time you give them money you help finance a campaign against gay equality.”

I doubt former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) worries much about Cyrus’ effect on his potential campaign, even if she does have more than a million Twitter followers. For that matter, I doubt he worries that Keira Knightley recently said she had to google his name. (And he shouldn’t — I know firsthand several high school senior girls who don’t know who Joe Biden is. Not that that’s excusable.)

But I had to pipe up about this because, when I read her comments, I couldn’t help but think, “Right. And every time you give Miley Cyrus money you help finance a girl who clearly doesn’t understand the value of the world she’s been given.” She’s a Southern-bred gal who grew up with an essentially intact family. She should know better than to be less than gracious. And Santorum is a stand-up guy who has always been solidly in support of family values — who suddenly seems pretty cool to me.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Hate gays, have young people ridicule you. This will happen, continuously, for a few more generations. Eventually, homophobes will die out. So long! ernesto on May 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Sure they will Che, because sodomists reproduce at such an alarming rate…

Akzed on May 29, 2011 at 2:32 PM

thuja on May 29, 2011 at 1:2rike>9 PM

It takes a special kind of scum to reduce debate to name-calling in one exchange.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2011 at 1:34 PM

No, something truly are too far out of bounds of decent society. Anyone who sits around thinking up lies to the effect of how great the gays were treated in Nazi Germany when they were being sent to concentration camps is scum, like we consider members of the KKK or the Nazi Party. It’s unpardonable homophobia on the level of racism of those groups. Yes, we all know the etymology of homophobia is stupid. You needn’t tell you don’t fear gay people. To be a homophobe means your heart is so filled with the hatred of gay people that you would say what rokemronnie said or believe despite how easily it is determine that it is false.

thuja on May 29, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Yes, we all know the etymology of homophobia is stupid.

Yes, the H word. Reduce the conversation further. Is it just easier to throw everyone into one big easy to assept group, bigot.

You needn’t tell you don’t fear gay people.

I don’t.

To be a homophobe means your heart is so filled with the hatred of gay people that you would say what rokemronnie said or believe despite how easily it is determine that it is false.

thuja on May 29, 2011 at 2:51 PM

You quoted wikipedia as proof, he quoted something else. Why is his quote hateful? Because you say so. Look, it’s your side filled with hate. You demonstrate it in every way when you comment here. The name-calling, the character assassinations, the threats. You’re certainly not real Conservatives.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2011 at 3:07 PM

accept ..

hawkdriver on May 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

and I’m supposed to be very concerned about what Miley Cyrus thinks because????

jordy2009 on May 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Yes, we all know the etymology of homophobia is stupid.

Yes, the H word. Reduce the conversation further. Is it just easier to throw everyone into one big easy to assept group, bigot.
hawkdriver on May 29, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Actually, it’s more like the “P Suffix“. Being completely stripped of all logic and rationality, the far left hopes that, when cornered by logic, if they attach “phobe” to any term it will serve as a diversionary conversation stopper ace-up-the-sleeve. i.e. it is a tacit confession that reason has totally decimated their emotional-based “argument”.

whatcat on May 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Hawkdriver,

I never said I was a Christian. How am I being a hypocrite? Because I won’t call an 18 yr old kid a skanky ho? Sorry, I don’t do stuff like that. It’s not my place to pass judgement on Miley Cyrus, and she has a right to her opinion as much as anyone. If so many people here are labeling themselves as Christians, they need to re-examine the things they’ve said in this thread. And quit using pop stars are role models for their kids.

di butler on May 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM

No, something truly are too far out of bounds of decent society. Anyone who sits around thinking up lies to the effect of how great the gays were treated in Nazi Germany when they were being sent to concentration camps is scum,

You can call me scum, but if I used terms like reprobate or catamite, you’d have a fit.

scumbag: slang term for condom
scum: slang term for semen

Gee, I thought gay guys liked scum. There are plenty of ads on Craigslist from gay men indicating a decided taste for it. Just search for “swallow” or “completion” under Men Seeking Men.

I never said that gays were treated “great” in Nazi Germany. What I said is that the claims of oppression of gays by the Nazis are exaggerated. You inadvertently provided evidence in favor of my statement.

Your claims about gays in Nazi Germany are simply not true.

Really? Goths bisexuality was not tolerated by his fellow officers? Tell Keneally that his book is a lie. Rohm and the other gay brownshirts weren’t set up by gays in the SR?

Here’s just a few paragraphs from the Wikipedia article on the Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust:

Now that’s a sound and unbiased historical source, a Wikipedia article written and edited by gay activists.


More than one million gay Germans were targeted,

Well, if the 10% figure is accurate (which it isn’t) there were a lot more than a million gay Germans. Again this is evidence that the Nazis had no comprehensive problem with gays in general, just those gays that were in the political opposition.


of whom at least 100,000 were arrested and 50,000 were serving prison terms as convicted gay men.

So, out of all the gay Germans, only 50,000 were imprisoned. A grand total of 5% of those gays who were “targeted” by the Nazis ended up in the camps. Compare that to the 50% of German Jews and the 90% of Polish Jews who were murdered.

Fully half the homosexuals that were put on trial were acquitted. Did the Nazis release any Gypsies or Jews?

[1] Hundreds of European gay men living under Nazi occupation were castrated under court order.[3]

And thousands of Jews and Gypsies were sterilized.

You use the word “European”, but there is little evidence that the Nazis were concerned with gays in the countries they occupied. It appears that only German homosexuals ended up in the camps. The Nazis never had selections or round ups of gays in France, Poland or any other parts of Europe.

rokemronnie on May 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Hate gays, have young people ridicule you. This will happen, continuously, for a few more generations. Eventually, homophobes will die out. So long!

ernesto on May 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Setting aside your loving, tolerant tone in looking forward to other people dying, I understand why you’re so smug — You’ve got the people with the big megaphones on your side: The entertainment industry, the mainstream media, and most of all, teacher’s unions like the California Teachers’ Association, who sponsored an elementary school presentation called “Gender Spectrum” in Oakland. Even in the liberal East Bay just south of Berkeley, not everybody was amused.

From KPIX in San Francisco, here’s video of the school’s principal defiantly saying she will continue:

Principal Sara Stone said parents expressed broad support for the programs, which were funded by a grant from the teachers’ union.

“My question is how is it pushing an agenda to teach kids to be caring and kind to one another and accept themselves for who they are?” she said.

Stone said she has every intention of continuing the program, and Gender Spectrum, which has conducted hundreds of these lessons, is only picking up steam.

“We teach the material as we teach the material. It doesn’t change because of controversy,” said [Joel] Baum [a Gender Spectrum educator].

This is from “Teaching About Gender Identity and Fluidity in Elementary Schools” from the Gender Spectrum website (bold mine):

…As responsible educators, we cannot ignore that in recent years, the taboo around discussing transgender identity has opened up. From Oprah to Tyra Banks to news magazines covering transgender issues, the topic is surfacing now more than ever. However, instead of surface level voyeuristic stories that run the gamut between exotic and freak, we are now hearing more about civil rights cases which force us to think about how we as a society treat each other based on identity. These cases offer ethical dilemmas that we should be able to debate in our classrooms – provided that we have taken the responsibility to set the framing and understanding among our students first. Is it right to fire a city employee based on personal identity issues, rather than incompetence? Should prison inmates be assigned to institutions based on their perceived gender, or on the gender they identify with?

Teaching children that every human should be allowed equal rights and the power to self-identify is a necessary responsibility that educators must take on…

However, you haven’t factored in that just like the word “racism” is losing its sting just like the word “WOLF!” did in the classic fable, so will the word “homophobe.” So, if you like, pile it on. Accuse people who simply disagree with you of wanting to bully you, harm you, kill you. It will just quicken the pace of reasonable people coming to their senses. Hopefully, you will not have accomplished the task of eradicating rationality by then.

L.N. Smithee on May 29, 2011 at 4:45 PM

homophobes will die out.

Setting aside your loving, tolerant tone in looking forward to other people dying
L.N. Smithee on May 29, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Not to mention the irony – what with those involved in homosexuality accepting AIDS as part and parcel of their chosen lifestyle.

whatcat on May 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Now that the smart one ripped the idiot one I wonder if Rick will continue to become president. Wow, I can’t believe there is someone who I would actually support less than Palin. Wait I forgot about Newt!

Monkei on May 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Monkei on May 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM

You look up to Miley Cyrus? That explains a lot.

kingsjester on May 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Ah yes, the masses wait with bated breath for the wisdom of Miley Cyrus to come forth and enlighten us all. Be still my beating heart…By the way has she gotten out of her limo pantieless in front of the paparazzi yet?

litebrite on May 29, 2011 at 7:33 PM

If so many people here are labeling themselves as Christians, they need to re-examine the things they’ve said in this thread.

Oh, I got you. Okay then, point out the Christians that said the unacceptable comments and I’ll respond to each one. Okay? Which ones are the Christians?

And quit using pop stars are role models for their kids.

di butler on May 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I’m sure they don’t.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

I can’t know what each poster believes, but I do know that many people here considers themselves Christians. That means to be Christ-like. If people believe this girl is doing immoral things, shouldn’t they be trying to lift her up, pray she finds her way, and let God judge her? Instead, we have comments about how she’s going to be another Lohan,heading toward Britney territory,and that’s she’s hillbilly trash. If you all can live with yourselves for saying things like that, then ok. I’m saying I can’t, and don’t understand it. I’ll leave it at that.

di butler on May 29, 2011 at 9:00 PM

I can’t know what each poster believes,

That’s right, you don’t. But you felt compelled to single out Christians for using course comments.

but I do know that many people here considers themselves Christians.

And many consider themselves Atheists that use course comments. Did you ever feel the need to single them out?

That means to be Christ-like. If people believe this girl is doing immoral things, shouldn’t they be trying to lift her up, pray she finds her way, and let God judge her? Instead, we have comments about how she’s going to be another Lohan,heading toward Britney territory,and that’s she’s hillbilly trash. If you all can live with yourselves for saying things like that, then ok. I’m saying I can’t, and don’t understand it. I’ll leave it at that.

di butler on May 29, 2011 at 9:00 PM

And all this would make a lot more sense if you demonstrated it was Christians responsible for all teh commets you didn’t like. As it is, I don’t understand what you’re still going on about. What Christians did you ID that made comments?

So, an EIGHTEEN yr old girl who expresses an opinion you don’t share gets called a skank, ho, druggie, trash, hillbilly, etc., here by supposedly good Christian folk and no one sees the hypocrisy? Uh, ok.

di butler on May 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Here is your original comment. My original response only took issue that “you” singled out Christians as the people making the comments. One person has Christian in their screen name and he only commented that Tina Fey lost fans over her Palin satire. Hardly a hypocritical observation. Seems to me you have an issue with Christians, singled them out with unfair characterizations. Sound familar?

hawkdriver on May 29, 2011 at 9:29 PM

No more comments DI? I was interested in your response.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Note to Miley: Beauty is only skin deep, but stupidity goes to the bone.

infidel4life on May 29, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Note to Miley: Beauty is only skin deep, but stupidity goes to the bone.

infidel4life on May 29, 2011 at 11:46 PM

For the record, I believe you’re required to report to Di Butler whether you’re a Christian or not if you’re going to make a derogatory comment about the 18yo celebrity. Jus sayin.

hawkdriver on May 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Yet, Santorum carelessly chose his words so that his larger point was lost. The GOP needs politicians who are more adept at making their point.

Please — what are you, twelve years old? Well, I’m not, and I can tell you that if there is a relevant and important point a conservative wants to make, the MSM will miss it — deliberately and maliciously. It doesn’t matter how clear s/he is, it will be re-interpreted to the reader or the viewer as if it is baffling. It’s called “Dowdification,” named after Maureen Dowd, the NY Times op-ed blatherer. Here’s a link to an example of dowdification in practice by then-Washington Post reporter Dan Froomkin (who is now the Senior Washington Correspondent for the Huffington Post). See how I busted him by looking at the original White House transcript and proved there was no way he could have written what he wrote unless he obscured details.

Santorum’s larger point is also problematic. He wants a government that can regulate the bedroom based on identifying an activity that “destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families”. If a local government restricted all sex to reproductive acts, Santorum’s logic appears to offer the individual no protection against the government.

dedalus on May 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM

You see, this is why I wrote “For people who can concentrate enough to take the ‘man on dog’ remark in the spirit in which it was spoken” in my comment.

Now, pay attention: In Santorum’s ideal America in which the Warren Court had not instituted a “right to privacy” in Griswold, the “protection against the government,” as you term it, is at the ballot box — either through the state legislatures, or through each state’s initiative process. Again, you said it yourself — “Leave it to the states” — and so did Santorum. I even put the pertinent text in bold to make sure you read it:

I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

I can understand that you’re impatient because put to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage has yet to win. Even in deep blue California, it’s lost twice over an eight-year span.

Do you know why it was seventeen years before Bowers v. Hardwick was negated by Lawrence v. Texas? Because even though the state of Georgia’s right to ban sodomy was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it stopped enforcing the law, and ultimately repealed it. The only reason there was an opportunity to take anti-sodomy laws to the SCOTUS is because a dumb cop in Texas felt like he needed to cover his butt after barging into a home on a phony 911 report of domestic violence (it was called in by a jealous ex-lover of John Lawrence, the plaintiff). It was there that he found Lawrence and his boyfriend Tyron Garner in flagrante delicto. The rest is history.

In his dissent in Lawrence, Clarence Thomas wrote that the Texas sodomy law in question was — as he quoted Potter Stewart — “profoundly silly,” and that had he been a member of the Texas legislature, he would have voted to overturn it. Instead, what ended up happening threatens to fatally wound existing laws that ban practices most people recognize as perverted and repugnant. If you’re wondering what I mean by that, read the conclusion of a 2009 article in Miami New Times that winds down addressing the Santorum quote:

[18-year-old Cody] Beck believes these are expressions of fear that are natural in the early moments of revolution. “That’s the story throughout history,” he says. “People don’t want to stand up for anything, because they don’t want to get hurt.” He draws some of his own strength from the recent movie Milk, in which Sean Penn plays the nation’s first openly gay elected official, San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk. “If we all stand up at once, we’ll share the load. What’s the point of living if we have to hide who we are?”

Sounds noble, doesn’t it? Now, read the rest of the article, learn about Cody and his far-flung friends, and make sure you have something to heave into.

L.N. Smithee on May 30, 2011 at 3:29 AM

dedalus: A long comment in response to you is in moderation. It should show up just before this one.

L.N. Smithee on May 30, 2011 at 3:33 AM

And the entire world should give a flying flaming rat’s patootie in space about anything Miley Cyrus has to say because………..?!!!!!!!

pilamaye on May 30, 2011 at 5:58 AM

Seriously? Miley Cyrus? Another reason why the voting age should be raised to at least 25!

pgrossjr on May 30, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Miley is living proof a semi-illiterate redneck can make millions of dollars in a capitalistic society before puberty.

volsense on May 30, 2011 at 9:42 AM

L.N. Smithee on May 30, 2011 at 3:29 AM

In Santorum’s ideal America in which the Warren Court had not instituted a “right to privacy” in Griswold, the “protection against the government,” as you term it, is at the ballot box — either through the state legislatures, or through each state’s initiative process. Again, you said it yourself — “Leave it to the states” — and so did Santorum.

Yet, rather than support his case persuasively Santorum got derailed by needless incendiary language. With most human discourse rhetoric matters and can bury a valid underlying point. It happens between husbands and wives, bosses and employees and it happens more with politicians than in most fields.

Marriage should be left to the state legislative process, but individual privacy ought not be solely in the hands of politicians. Santorum can make a case that Roe was wrongly decided without dismissing Griswold. The presence of an additional life (with rights) makes the cases very different. Palin is one GOP candidate who disagrees with Roe while asserting an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.

Santorum could have made his point better, but even if he had a reading of the Constitution where there is no right to privacy likely will not work within the context of a national political campaign.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Miley Cyrus is essentially a Disney CHARACTER. Think about that for a second. Without Disney productions, Miley Cyrus simply does not exist.

Why would anyone take anything Disney character says seriously?

Freddy on May 30, 2011 at 3:51 PM

her musical travels have taken her into the “whore hip-hop” genre. What else could you expect? Semi-nude photos taken by a lesbian? She’s obviously been brain-washed/ recruited by the hollywood crowd. Pity. DD

Darvin Dowdy on May 30, 2011 at 4:35 PM

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Needlessly incendiary language. I’m guessing you repeating a lie is supposed to either convince us or convince you that the language was incendiary. The gay community really is uber-sensitive if that language is hurtful.

You guys dish out what I would consider rude, incediary, hateful, mean-spirited, destructive and uncivil.

hawkdriver on May 30, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Needlessly incendiary language. I’m guessing you repeating a lie is supposed to either convince us or convince you that the language was incendiary. The gay community really is uber-sensitive if that language is hurtful.

You guys dish out what I would consider rude, incediary, hateful, mean-spirited, destructive and uncivil.

hawkdriver on May 30, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Santorum dished out the language and his political career got hit. You toss out a word like lie, but are unable to show where I’ve done so.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Yet, rather than support his case persuasively Santorum got derailed by needless incendiary language. With most human discourse rhetoric matters and can bury a valid underlying point. It happens between husbands and wives, bosses and employees and it happens more with politicians than in most fields.

Marriage should be left to the state legislative process, but individual privacy ought not be solely in the hands of politicians. Santorum can make a case that Roe was wrongly decided without dismissing Griswold. The presence of an additional life (with rights) makes the cases very different. Palin is one GOP candidate who disagrees with Roe while asserting an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.

IHMO, Roe was the ultimate in judicial activism, actual legislation from the Supreme Court bench from whole cloth. It is not incumbent upon dissenters to cite Griswold to agree that Roe is outrageous. But because Roe granted instant extra-Constitutional rights to over half the population throughout the entire nation, it’s dicey to talk about correcting it. As the adage goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Santorum could have made his point better, but even if he had a reading of the Constitution where there is no right to privacy likely will not work within the context of a national political campaign.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM

What you apparently want is for every Republican to wrap every sentence up in a hermetically sealed container so tight, it can’t possibly be chopped up, re-assembled, and misinterpreted by a journalist whose life’s mission is to convince the news-consuming public that Republicans hate them. That’s not going to happen.

I agree that Santorum will not be elected President because he is too honest about his point of view on privacy. But there is no way a guy like Dan Savage would have engaged in an honest debate; he’s a trash-talking slimebucket. Just last week, in response to a Canadian MP saying homosexuality was a choice, Savage invited the pol to choose to perform fellatio on him. No amount of careful, clinical, non- “incendiary” language will stop people like him.

On top of that, Savage is a liar. I will prove that when I finally finish my blog post.

L.N. Smithee on May 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Santorum dished out the language and his political career got hit. You toss out a word like lie, but are unable to show where I’ve done so.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

What would you call repeating something that cannot be demonstrated to be true?

hawkdriver on May 30, 2011 at 9:32 PM

But there is no way a guy like Dan Savage would have engaged in an honest debate; he’s a trash-talking slimebucket.

L.N. Smithee on May 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

I don’t disagree.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 9:41 PM

who suddenly seems pretty cool to me.

Rick Santorum may be many things to many people, but cool is not one of them.

snoopicus on May 31, 2011 at 9:48 AM

It’s over for Rick. Most people, like myself, vote solely on what Miley says.

jeffn21 on May 31, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3