Jane Lynch, a millionaire, tweeted in defense of billionaires–and it’s not working out so great for her.
During the Democratic debate on Thursday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took aim at South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s recent closed-door fundraiser for wealthy donors.
“The mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900-a-bottle wine,” Warren said at the debate. “Think about who comes to that.”
Buttigieg’s event was held at the Hall Rutherford wine caves in Napa Valley and hosted by billionaires Craig and Kathryn Hall.
“He had promised that every fundraiser he would do would be open-door, but this one was closed-door. We made the decision years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States,” Warren said.
It’s the norm that candidates vying for political office often pander to wealthy potential donors to help finance their campaign. Warren’s campaign has resisted in doing so. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also took aim at Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden for receiving contributions from billionaires at the debate.
While many voters expressed discomfort with Buttigieg’s strategy, the Glee actress was not among them.
“Billionaires in wine caves have as much right to say who gets to be president as waitresses in diners and plumbers in my bathroom,” she tweeted on Friday. “Class warfare is ugly, @ewarren.”
Hello everyone. Billionaires in wine caves have as much right to say who gets to be president as waitresses in diners and plumbers in my bathroom. Class warfare is ugly, @ewarren Thanks for listening everyone.
— Jane Lynch (@janemarielynch) December 20, 2019
In theory, yes, billionaires in wine caves and waitresses and plumbers would all have equal weight in choosing the next president. However, as many online pointed out, that is simply not the case.
“The problem is—which is clear when Warren talked about it—that billionaires in wine caves have *substantially* more say in the process than waitresses and plumbers,” one user responded.
Another wrote that it is ignorant to believe the top 1% getting “on-demand access to politicians” is a real democracy.
“Waitress: 1 vote, $3 monthly donation, 130 FB friends. Billionaire: 1 vote, max personal donation, millions to super PACs, bundles from friends, millions paid to lobbyists, buys media to influence coverage, hosts fundraisers, millions of followers,” Twitter user @pstokesbooks wrote. “Jane: These are the same.”
Yes, "class warfare" is quite ugly.And the ultra-rich should stop fighting the war.
— Pé Resists (@4everNeverTrump) December 20, 2019
Imagine believing it's normal and good for people who make up .001% of the population to have personal, on-demand access to politicians that average people aren't given. Imagine believing that's democracy. smh embarrassed for you.
— Joe Biden is a Racist (@BethLynch2020) December 20, 2019
Furthermore, billionaires often don't pay taxes.
Does their voice matter then?
— 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐲 (@disco_socialist) December 20, 2019
Waitress: 1 vote, $3 monthly donation, 130 FB friends Billionaire: 1 vote, max personal donation, millions to super PACs, bundles from friends, millions paid to lobbyists, buys media to influence coverage, hosts fundraisers, millions of followers etc.Jane: These are the same.
— Paula Stokes (@pstokesbooks) December 21, 2019
Whew. Really wishing you had chosen not to comment.Love your acting but this is a garbage take that completely misses the point and minimizes the corrupting influence of money in politics.Class warfare is a constant. And 99% of us are its casualties. THAT’S what’s “ugly.”
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath) December 20, 2019
Maybe the problem is that the ultra wealthy and their companies have too much say in policies and who gets elected to enact them.https://t.co/CkKwj8RtA5
— Tuxedo Mask (@TheLoveBel0w) December 20, 2019
“What we’re seeing in this election cycle is that too often times in politics, money still talks. People can basically buy their way on to the debate stage. They can buy increases in polling very quickly when you dump $100m on TV ads.” –@juliancastro
— Kim (@kim) December 20, 2019
My 65 year old dad just saw this tweet for the first time at dinner and said “tweet her this: OK, Boomer.”
— Nomiki Konst (@NomikiKonst) December 21, 2019
Lynch, who has donated to the Buttigieg campaign and hosted events for him herself, followed up by insisting that she understands what Warren was saying, she just doesn’t like “the delivery system.”
“It’s an encouragement of class warfare,” she wrote. “I don’t like it when Trump does it. I don’t like it when @ewarren does it.”
We are engaged in class warfare on the daily. The ultra rich engage in class warfare in everything they do. Suggesting that having a private meeting in a wine cave in itself isn’t class warfare against the common person is asinine and helps the elite. Stop silencing us.
— HippieGoatMan (@GoatHippie) December 21, 2019
I honestly don't get what part of "don't sell access" they don't understand.
— Lara Schwartz (@Lara_Schwartz) December 20, 2019
Lynch allegedly then tweeted “HOW DO YOU STOP A TRENDING” after her tweet went viral for all the wrong reasons.
— Michael Tannenbaum (@iamTannenbaum) December 21, 2019
She just deleted this and I will never stop laughing pic.twitter.com/7tTVwjneCg
— molly (@isteintraum) December 21, 2019
But, as the sides are drawn, there’s at least one thing Lynch has said that we can all agree on: The wine cave memes are back. She might’ve even created a new one with her very Boomer “HOW DO YOU STOP A TRENDING” line.
And the dying embers of what was the wine cave meme is gently blown back to life.
— Jane Lynch (@janemarielynch) December 20, 2019
The wine cave defenders have logged on
Pete Buttigieg’s wine cave fundraiser gets mocked by internet, other Dems onstage
Warren says she doesn’t have a ‘beef with billionaires’
Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly having private meetings with prominent conservatives
The post Jane Lynch dragged for her defense of ‘billionaires in wine caves’ appeared first on The Daily Dot.
Read more: dailydot.com