Lindsay Lohan has her leggings in a bunch after the liquor industry ran this full-page ad in USA Today:
The ad attempts to explain that while ignition interlocks are a good idea for someone like LiLo, who has two DUI arrests and downs many “water bottles,” they shouldn’t be forced on drivers who drink responsibly.
However, LiLo’s attorney was not amused by the use of her client’s police precinct portrait, issuing this statement to TMZ:
“USA TODAY is idiotic for running such an irresponsible advertisement, suggesting that drinking and driving is some kind of American ‘tradition’ we should protect. Not identifying that this ad was paid for by the liquor industry is profoundly reckless.
Drunk, old, white businessmen, drunk cougars out for girls night out, and drunk wedding parties should be kept off the roads of America. Lindsay Lohan fully endorses ignition interlock devices that have been well-proven to save lives.”
I know, I know. I’m thinking the same thing…
“DRUNK COUGARS?”
Hmmmm. Clearly, she’s well-acquainted with Dina.
Candy: you get it right every time! As soon as I read the cougar part I immediately thought “Dina Lohan”! Nice to see the stereotype of older people as drunk drivers being trotted out as well (especially love the “white businessmen” part). I can’t comment on the general population, but recent celebrity DUI arrests have spanned all age groups and races and both genders.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pmDrunk cougars: Give me a couple of hours, and I’ll qualify.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pmyeah, the lawyer’s statement was just as dumb as the ad, filled with offensive stereotypes. i know she’s just commenting on the pictures used in the ad but there was certainly a more diplmoatic way of wording that statement. idiot.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pmCompletely hilarious, that ad.
Good on them for running it. It’ll be worth the legal bills.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pmThe bastard left out Drunken Midgets! How discriminatory!
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pmMid: Don’t worry Vern Troyer’s lawyers are on it!
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pmoops I meant “on to it” or “on the case”
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:15 pmBrit Bit:
Oh thank you! Whew!
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am