SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Wow, Did Foster Friess Really Say That? (Updated)

JONATHAN COHN FEBRUARY 16, 2012

Wow, Did Foster Friess Really Say That? (Updated)

BY JONATHAN COHN

Foster Friess, the conservative financier behind Rick Santorum’s super-PAC, was on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” a few minutes ago. Mitchell asked him whether he was concerned about Santorum’s stands on social issues, and their potential to alienate voters. Friess said that he thought the social issues were a distraction, with so many people struggling financially—which is reasonable enough.

Then he said this: 

This contraception thing, my gosh, it’s [so] inexpensive. You know, back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.

Mitchell was speechless. As am I.

You can’t hold politicians responsible for what their supporters say. But it’s creepy, and offensive, that anybody living in the 21st Century would say that, let alone somebody with huge financial resources and a desire to influence American politics.

I would hope Friess apologizes for the statement—and that, at some point, Santorum makes clear he doesn’t share such sentiments.

Update: Friess appeared on MSNBC's "The Last Word" on Thursday evening, and told host Lawrence O'Donnell that he was simply repeating an old joke that used to be popular. At the annual Lincoln Day dinner in suburban Detroit, Santorum just told Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray that "I'm not responsible for every bad joke one of my supporters makes." Meantime, if you haven't read Molly Redden's profile of Friess, you should. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 43 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

43 comments

Wow.

- Tristan

February 16, 2012 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow.

- NR409654

February 16, 2012 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Me three. Wow.

- ballston

February 16, 2012 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Me four. Outrageous; meanwhile I'm not allowed to mention Santorum in the house anymore; it gets my hubbie too upset.

- Sophia

February 16, 2012 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Boy, sure sounds like those "radical feminists" never got through to this dude. He must watch "Mad Men" for a bit of nostalgia about the good ol' days when Americans did gender relations right.

- bmoodie

February 16, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So he's promoting abstinence over safe sex. It's almost kinda funny. Not so strangely, the first thing actually that came to mind was all the different positions that are possible when lady's knees are touching; it wasn't a, um, short list.

The only reason I find it offensive is because it discreetly promotes living by someone else's choices/standards/morals, rather than being allowed and enabled to decide for themselves.

I wonder how he feels about suffrage? Probably something about being comfortable infront of the stove?

- GSpinks

February 16, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to be honest, I don't even know what the hell that means. Does it mean women kept their legs closed and didn't have sex? Or that they inserted an aspirin? this just might be way before my time.

- blackton

February 16, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, the implication of Friess's remark is that the only people who want contraception are these 20-something singles who pick each other up at the bar. All married folks are at home, happily procreatin' up a storm.

- ironyroad

February 16, 2012 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not THAT old, but I'm old enough to know that this is a really old joke. Once upon a time (down to about, oh, 1975) it was still funny in some circles. In fact, what makes it offensive this time is context as much as anything. It's lame more than anything else. This is not Rush Limbaugh trying to be irritating and politically incorrect in his war on 'feminazis.' It's an old guy who needs to get out more (probably in more ways than one).

- timteeter

February 16, 2012 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sex and aspirin does have a history together (other than the headache excuse) but Friess is confused. Aspirin in a Coke was supposed to an aphrodisiac. I could never get the dosage right - how many aspirins for one bottle of Coke - so it never worked for me.

- rayward

February 16, 2012 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yee-gads, Friess's joke may not be old in the sense that Chester Arthur and James Garfield used to chuckle at it over a glass of absinthe, but I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to anyone younger than 60 -- and that would include Rick Santorum! Sort of like Marco Rubio's "Sword of Chang" line, but less inherently absurd and more inherently obscure.

- wildboy

February 16, 2012 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it possible to be weak with loathing? I haven't even been able to comment coherently on any of this contraception nonsense because I become bug-eyed and begin foaming at the mouth, threatening to take an axe to someone, etc. I don't mind loathing Santorum and his ilk, it's satisfying and comfy as an old shoe, but I have nothing helpful or even concrete to add to the dialouge. Fuck Santorum to all hell isn't exactly deep. But then there's those moments, like this one, where I feel that old familiar sting I hate to admit is even there, which silences me and brings a sense of sadness. I only admit to feeling the victim quite grudgingly, like a horse pulling at a bit. Sexism just plain hurts like nothing else, period.

- WandreyCer

February 16, 2012 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And this is why women voters are fleeing to the Democrats (thank goodness): http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2012/02/new-phase-and-shifting-balance/ "President Obama nears the 50 percent mark and is now just four points away from what he achieved in 2008. Democrats have newly consolidated the progressive voters of the Rising American Electorate who were responsible for Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. These voters—unmarried women, young voters, and minorities—dropped off in 2010 and lagged throughout 2011. They have returned in a big way for Democrats, led by a resurgence and re-engagement of unmarried women. Only young voters have not been re-consolidated, which is either a problem or an opportunity. Seniors, who abandoned Democrats in 2010, have come back two surveys in a row and suburban swing voters watch the Republican primary debate with growing alienation from the Republican Party. The tax issue, a presumptive Republican advantage, has moved dramatically in favor of the Democrats. These results may not simply be the result of a spot of good economic news and rough news cycles for Republican nominees, but the beginning of long-term structural changes that will characterize the 2012 election cycle. Recent controversies over Planned Parenthood and contraception will not revive the Republican’s standing, indeed, the opposite may be true, as this survey shows voters disagree with them on principle and wonder why at a time of great economic distress, Republicans are consumed with denying birth control coverage for women..."

- maxhencke

February 16, 2012 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"but I have nothing helpful or even concrete to add to the dialogue" Wandrey, you add to the dialogue like few can. We're ok with you (temporarily) going to the zoo. It happens to the best of us. With you its sexism, with me its thoughtless drumbeats for war (see Peretz, Marty). With Mr Rationale, its evidence that Obama's economic policies are working. And so on. In the words of the great philosopher Alfred Hitchcock, "We all go a little mad sometimes."

- Tristan

February 16, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meanwhile, this is almost beyond comprehension - http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/426850/democratic-women-boycott-issas-contraception-hearing-for-preventing-women-from-testifying/?mobile=nc

- Sophia

February 16, 2012 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looks like the GOP male ego is on a single-minded mission to alienate large numbers of the opposite sex. What have Republican women got to say about this?

- ironyroad

February 16, 2012 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tris, so true about the Rationale program -- I haven't seen a posting from it in months! My guess is that he finally got out of his parents' basement and got a job so he doesn't have time to post here anymore. I just wonder what we can do about bulbman and your friend and mine the Chooch. My guess is they are both self-employed so the answer is nothing short of a failure to pay their ISP bills.

- wildboy

February 16, 2012 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. Wow squared. I'm old enough to know this tale from way back, but to have it uttered on the air, by someone supposedly supporting a supposedly mainstream candidate sort blows the mind. Last time someone said something that stupid on that subject was probably Earl Butz with "You no playa the game, you no maka the rules." At least Butz had the advantage of having a point, however offensively he made it. And the link from Sophia. Gadzooks. How tone-deaf and tunnel-visioned can one party get before they implode from inability to communicate with even themselves?

- IowaBeauty

February 16, 2012 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, bulbman is an odd one. I once characterized him as a strange half-bird, half-man creature that lands on the parapet of the medieval town and squawks menacingly at passers-by as they hurry home in the dusk, but doesn't do any real harm. Suddenly he spreads his wings and disappears into the night. Noone knows where the creature lives, but they are used to him.

- ironyroad

February 16, 2012 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey, I think your contribution is quite concrete and adds much to the discussion, easily more than my own musings prior. Keep on keepin' on, sister!

- GSpinks

February 16, 2012 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton, yeah, I didn't get it either. I think the joke is, "Hey, you know what's best for contraception?" "What?" "Aspirin." "Really??" "Yeah, take one aspirin, put it between your knees and don't let it drop." Or something like that. Hilarious.

- JakeH

February 16, 2012 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe I'm obtuse, but I don't see any difference between what Friess said and what Santorum keeps saying. Sex is immoral unless its done the way that Santorum wants you to have sex and you should call Santorum for advice during the act to make sure its done right.

- Nusholtz

February 16, 2012 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

it's

- Nusholtz

February 16, 2012 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jakeh, thanks. that makes sense (though it is still lame) but I had to assume his meaning as I had never heard anything that stupid before.

- blackton

February 16, 2012 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You know, back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly. Thank you, thank you, you've been a great audience ladies and germs. I'll be playing the Sands all this week. And now let's give a warm Vegas welcome to my dear fiend, I mean friend, Soupy Sales" Well, sock it to me. Here I was saying that Newt Gingrich was our bridge to the 90's, and not to be undone Santorum and his sugar daddy have taken us back to 1965.

- dubyadoubte

February 16, 2012 at 7:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's secret plan for re-election: get the GOP to talk about what they really stand for.

- JEFF FREY

February 16, 2012 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tris, GSpinks - I'm constantly reminded of why I love men, why my life as a reluctant feminist (not because of the cause, but because of the need of it) is never a lonely one. True friends, you are.

- WandreyCer

February 16, 2012 at 7:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep it up Repubs -- we'll get the House back and keep the Senate with no problem... (If Scott Brown keeps following on the current path, supporting the idiotic Blunt amendment that goes even beyond what the bishops want, Elizabeth Warren will trounce him. She's already winning over the women of Massachusetts; it'll make it even easier. So there's one more seat back in the Column.)

- shellski

February 16, 2012 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum has to apologize for the statement. This is going to have much more impact than the media and Republicans realize. In 1992, about 9 months before the election, the Seattle Times published a list of the issues it thought would be most important in the upcoming presidential race. At the bottom of the list was the dismissive catchall "Women's Issues" with an asterick. I followed the asterick to a list of issues, in about 4 pt. type; "Health Care, Social Security, Childcare, Education, Abortion." I thought, "oh, only life, death and a lot of the most troublesome and momentous concerns in-between." This was less than a year after the Clarence Thomas hearings and 9 months before "the year of the woman" swept the Republican President out of office and a record breaking number of women into office. I think the media, as well, of course, as the Republican Party, tends to dismiss women as part of the political debate and has a hard time considering women and their votes as a significant factor in the political outcome. 9 months from now, we may look back and realize women were the most significant factor in this year's elections. This kind of nonsense will help Obama, but it may be even more important for female Democratic candidates. This issue certainly is not going to be helpful for the Republicans who are hoping to win the Senate.

- esmense

February 16, 2012 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Dubyadouble Laughter

- Nusholtz

February 16, 2012 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apparently Santorum can't tell the difference between a "bad joke" and a very public and very damaging revelation of how little respect his inner circle has for women. If his #1 supporter is comfortable speaking this way in public and on air, and Santorum isn't outraged and apologetic, you can be sure, and certainly every women is sure, that the way they think about, and the way they speak about, women in private is many times worse.

- esmense

February 16, 2012 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So when do protesters show up at Santorum rallies waving bottles of aspirin? It's only a matter of time.

- timteeter

February 16, 2012 at 11:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Was his name originally French Friess and he changed it to Foster Friess as a result of France's failure to support the Iraq invasion and Australia's decision to do so?

- ironyroad

February 17, 2012 at 12:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually I think you're supposed to use St. Joseph's aspirin; otherwise it won't work.

- Sophia

February 17, 2012 at 1:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia, I don't imagine that you could hear the howls of laughter my wife and I made in our Vienna apartment just now, so I'll just say "Thanks!"

- kras

February 17, 2012 at 3:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Friess' remark is offensive in so many ways I don't know where to begin. Thanks for my laugh of the day, Sophia! WandreyCer, I love you too. Would you consider a lesbian relationship?

- Claris

February 17, 2012 at 6:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course my dear Claris. You get em esmense, Soph.

- WandreyCer

February 17, 2012 at 7:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Further proof that it doesn't take a lot of brains to become obscenely rich.

- duncand909

February 17, 2012 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rayward: "Aspirin in a Coke was supposed to an aphrodisiac." It had to be warm Coca-Cola, and, with an aspirin, make the woman so sleepy that advantage could be taken - circa 1970. I never heard FF's old joke back then, but all this means is that Foster Friess has learned that big$PAC donors really should remain anonymous and/or off tv. The Democrats unfortunately have now exposed themselves on using the authority assigned to the Executive by PPACA to specify what is "preventive medicine" by this deliberate move on contraception. The dilemma is that is already being seen as serious intrusion (President decides!) into deciding what health insurance will cover. However, I take comfort in knowing that Medicare decided that one aspirin a day is recommended for anyone over 80, after deciding that no one over 65 needs to have their blood test for cholesterol more than once every five years, both policy decisions effective January 1, 2011 (so the full blame goes to the Democrats). I guess anyone who survives to 80 without knowing their cholesterol levels for 12 out of 15 years, gets to take an aspirin to ward off heart attacks and strokes. Let the aspirin war begin :)

- K2K

February 17, 2012 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the historical record, what is at stake for women is going back to the Comstock Laws of 1873 (text included at end of my historical defense of Margaret Sanger, who I consider to be the most influential woman of the 20th century, and am appalled at how she is under attack by some conservatives). Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), is the person most identified with the modern birth control movement. She founded the New York Birth Control League (NYBCL) in 1914, when both Federal and many state laws defined related information and products as obscene and immoral, and thus illegal, throughout the United States (U.S.). The American Birth Control League in 1921, and the Planned Parenthood Foundation in 1942, succeeded the NBCL. Her mission to secure the freedom for women all over the world to control their reproductive life, the most divisive political issue in the U.S. since slavery, continues today. By the end of her life, this mission brought new options in contraception, funding research and development of spermicides in the 1920’s and the birth control pill in the 1950’s, and the first domestic manufacture of the diaphragm. Planned Parenthood’s sponsorship of the U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold vs. Connecticut became the first interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to include a woman’s right to privacy and thus choice in her reproductive life, decided by the Warren court a few months before Sanger’s death, and the basis for Roe vs. Wade in 1973, which extended that right of privacy to abortion. Between 1912 and the 1920’s, she shifted her base and strategy from the direct action of the radical labor left, to judicial activism supported by prominent clubwomen, libertarian backers of free speech, doctors, and nativist proponents of eugenics in order to change the meaning of the obscenity laws that inhibited transmission of birth control information and products in the U.S. The tragic death of one patient, Sadie Sachs, from a second self-induced abortion after vainly pleading for information on birth control subsequent to the first one, was Margaret’s epiphany in 1912 when she was a nurse working for the Henry Street Settlement. The Federal Criminal Code Section 211 from 1873 reads: "Every obscene, lewd, or lascivious, and every filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character, and every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom, or by what means any of the hereinbefore-mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed or how or by what means conception may be prevented or abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and every letter, packet, or package, or other mail matter containing any filthy, vile, or indecent thing, device, or substance and every paper, writing, advertisement or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can be, used or applied, for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing, is hereby declared to be a non-mailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier. Whoever shall knowingly deposit or cause to be deposited for mailing or delivery, anything declared by this section to be non-mailable, or shall knowingly take, or cause the same to be taken, from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

- K2K

February 17, 2012 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K -- It's easy to make it sound scary that the government will decide what treatments and tests should be standard, covered, etc. but it's not as if our doctors have the freedom to make those choices now (unless you are self-insured). Under the current regime, it's the insurers who decide, and with most of them being profit-seeking, their bottom line (and shareholders' interests) are a factor in the decision-making. If some institution has to decide, I'd prefer it be a non-partisan government entity (such as HHS, IOM, etc.), which is how it's done in pretty much every other developed country. At least I know they are not denying coverage in order to help their overpaid CEO earn even more.

- shellski

February 17, 2012 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As far as government determining who gets paid how much for what in medical care, its worth pointing out that not only is there a considerable market already in secondary insurance--my mother-in-law has all her deductibles and copays covered by AARP--but this market will likely grow. There will continue to be disparities in health care coverage no matter what the system, and people of means will still be in a position to determine through either their own funds or additional coverage just what kind of service will be provided and by whom. Under the new law the insurance playing field is being leveled somewhat, but it is not being eliminated.

- timteeter

February 18, 2012 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not to sure about the "no one under 60" bit. I find it amazing that Mr. Friess is only 6 years older than I am and he's telling a joke that my GRANDFATHER might have thought hilarious. My father would have found it merely stupid.

- dabowers

February 20, 2012 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close