yea its going to be a fun political season. Break out the popcorn and fajitas!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And counterfire. If you're like me and love poltical campaigns like a good boxing match this is going to be the year of years. hurray!!!
I will admit though, she makes a good point about Romneys wife. It kind of comes back to that whole "How can a rich politician say he understands the average mans woes, when they are super fething rich" How can she say this is what women of America wants, when she stays at home, and gets bathed in lavish things because she married an uber rich man?
I agree that economically Ann might never have had to worry about money like most families. But I am sure that raising 5 kids was a lot of work. I don't think I ever heard that she had a fleet of nannies that did her parenting for her.
"Ann doesn't know what it is like to face these kind of economic hardships" would have been a better line of attack. Don't attack stay-at-home moms for placing family over jobs. That never works for either side of the political spectrum.
Manchu wrote:The political commentator has some good points about the Romneys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Don't attack stay-at-home moms for placing family over jobs. That never works for either side of the political spectrum.
Fortunately, no one in that video attacked stay-at-home moms for prioritizing family over jobs.
The actual attack:
"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said.
"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."
I know she didn't actually say that she placed family over jobs. But she was attacked for never 'working'. And usually any attack on a woman for 'never working' is taken as an attack on stay-at-home moms. That doesn't mean that this was the intent of the message, but it is how the political game is played. Speculating about the motivation behind the statement is as much part of the dialog as the actual statement. And pundits will jump on the "she criticized her for never working, she must hate stay-at-home moms" bandwagon. I don't agree with that reasoning, but it will be there.
If she would have just left out that one sentence, then there would be a lot less to criticize about her statement IMO. Even if you are rich like Ann Romney, raising a family is hard and she should not be attacked for it.
CptJake wrote:I thought the Obama policy was family members were off limts?
There's a key difference: When Obama made the comment, he was referring to people attacking Palin's daughter over her pregnancy; he wanted politics to be about politics, not family drama.
In this instance, you have a presidential candidate bringing his own family up, in the political context of economic planning, and in a context that as the commentator states fairly evenly, IMO.
So I'm not sure the two are even remotely comparable.
It's also not Obama saying it...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
I know she didn't actually say that she placed family over jobs. But she was attacked for never 'working'. And usually any attack on a woman for 'never working' is taken as an attack on stay-at-home moms. That doesn't mean that this was the intent of the message, but it is how the political game is played. Speculating about the motivation behind the statement is as much part of the dialog as the actual statement. And pundits will jump on the "she criticized her for never working, she must hate stay-at-home moms" bandwagon. I don't agree with that reasoning, but it will be there.
If she would have just left out that one sentence, then there would be a lot less to criticize about her statement IMO. Even if you are rich like Ann Romney, raising a family is hard and she should not be attacked for it.
While that one line taken on its own might seem like an attack, taken in context it makes complete sense though. Someone who has never had to find or compete for a job simply has no context and no idea what the millions of other women/men/people go through looking for one.
I put that line akin to Romney's "I'm not worried about poor people." As a sound bite, it sounds pretty damning. Taken in context with the full "We have safety nets... ... I'm worried about the middle class" however...
Content should not be subordinate to presentation. This a great illustration of what is wrong and broken about political discourse in our culture -- that anyone could with a straight face interpret this commentator's remarks as an attack on stay-at-home moms. It's like if I interpreted your analysis above as an attack on working women. But that's our climate. Look at the title of this thread even. You shouldn't spread the misrepresentation of a person's comments around if you are smart enough to realize that it is a misrepresentation, as you apparently are.
The commentator pointed out that Romney bases his concept of what women are concerned about on someone who is totally unrepresentative of women and that this is a sign that Romney does not take women seriously as the equals of men. This is an argument. Characterizing it as "an attack" perpetuated by "a hack" is a further argument, one based on ad hominem.
d-usa wrote:Even if you are rich like Ann Romney, raising a family is hard and she should not be attacked for it.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either the commentator did not attack Mrs. Romney or she did. In fact, she did not -- if by "attack" you mean "criticized her for being a stay-at-home mom or that she didn't raise her children properly in some manner."
d-usa wrote:
I know she didn't actually say that she placed family over jobs. But she was attacked for never 'working'. And usually any attack on a woman for 'never working' is taken as an attack on stay-at-home moms. That doesn't mean that this was the intent of the message, but it is how the political game is played. Speculating about the motivation behind the statement is as much part of the dialog as the actual statement. And pundits will jump on the "she criticized her for never working, she must hate stay-at-home moms" bandwagon. I don't agree with that reasoning, but it will be there.
If she would have just left out that one sentence, then there would be a lot less to criticize about her statement IMO. Even if you are rich like Ann Romney, raising a family is hard and she should not be attacked for it.
While that one line taken on its own might seem like an attack, taken in context it makes complete sense though. Someone who has never had to find or compete for a job simply has no context and no idea what the millions of other women/men/people go through looking for one.
I put that line akin to Romney's "I'm not worried about poor people." As a sound bite, it sounds pretty damning. Taken in context with the full "We have safety nets... ... I'm worried about the middle class" however...
That is one of the problems with out media though, they rely on "sound bites" to keep the conversation going. Even if the conversation no longer has anything to do with the original comment. Which of course speaks just as much about the media on both sites as it does about the pundits.
And of course the regular folks will rely on the sound bites, and their favorite pundits explanation of that sound bite, for making up their mind. Most will not bother to find out the actual whole statement and/or the contend in which it was mentioned.
d-usa wrote:That is one of the problems with out media though, they rely on "sound bites" to keep the conversation going. Even if the conversation no longer has anything to do with the original comment.
d-usa wrote:Even if you are rich like Ann Romney, raising a family is hard and she should not be attacked for it.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either the commentator did not attack Mrs. Romney or she did. In fact, she did not -- if by "attack" you mean "criticized her for being a stay-at-home mom or that she didn't raise her children properly in some manner."
I don't think it was an attack, but I realize that it can be misconstrued as such and will be presented as such by at least some of the pundits.
My quote was more of a hypothetical. I would not be surprised if somebody would actually attack her for being a stay-at-home mom, given our hostile political environment. And I think an actual attack based on that would be stupid. If that makes any sense...
d-usa wrote:That is one of the problems with out media though, they rely on "sound bites" to keep the conversation going. Even if the conversation no longer has anything to do with the original comment. Which of course speaks just as much about the media on both sites as it does about the pundits.
And of course the regular folks will rely on the sound bites, and their favorite pundits explanation of that sound bite, for making up their mind. Most will not bother to find out the actual whole statement and/or the contend in which it was mentioned.
I agree 100%, mind you. Romney's infamous line was repeated over and over initially, but as people began to see the context of it you heard it less and less.
My whole point was that calling that one single line an attack, or even implying that Ann Romney was attacked for raising her family, is a bit disingenuous.
Manchu wrote:The political commentator has some good points about the Romneys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Don't attack stay-at-home moms for placing family over jobs. That never works for either side of the political spectrum.
Fortunately, no one in that video attacked stay-at-home moms for prioritizing family over jobs.
The actual attack:
"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said.
"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."
I know she didn't actually say that she placed family over jobs. But she was attacked for never 'working'. And usually any attack on a woman for 'never working' is taken as an attack on stay-at-home moms. That doesn't mean that this was the intent of the message, but it is how the political game is played. Speculating about the motivation behind the statement is as much part of the dialog as the actual statement. And pundits will jump on the "she criticized her for never working, she must hate stay-at-home moms" bandwagon. I don't agree with that reasoning, but it will be there.
If she would have just left out that one sentence, then there would be a lot less to criticize about her statement IMO. Even if you are rich like Ann Romney, raising a family is hard and she should not be attacked for it.
There is a difference between a stay at home mom (whom chooses to raise her family herself instead of work) and a women who has never worked a day in her life (because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth).
d-usa wrote:That is one of the problems with out media though, they rely on "sound bites" to keep the conversation going. Even if the conversation no longer has anything to do with the original comment.
This is exactly the approach you are taking ITT.
I felt like my replies have been a fairly consistent case of
1) she did not actually attack her for staying at home, but she had a sentence in her statement that can and will be twisted to present her in that way. Would have been better if she left that sentence out.
2) actually attacking her for staying at home would be stupid and wrong.
I fail to see how these two are incompatible or construe talking "out of both sides of my mouth".
"I don't think she attacked Ann, and stay-at-home moms should never be criticized for not working anyway." That doesn't seem like an incompatible sentence to me, and I am sorry if I come across as taking both sides.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:There is a difference between a stay at home mom (whom chooses to raise her family herself instead of work) and a women who has never worked a day in her life (because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth).
Agreed. A stay-at-home parent will have worked at some point in their lives. They still would have had a part-time job during high school and/or college, and then worked for a few years post-graduations before having kids.
Never working a day in your life is completely different.
That being said... this was a rather dumb comment on his her part. People can understand, sympathize, and want to correct the plight of others without having to go through it themselves.
Manchu wrote:The political commentator has some good points about the Romneys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Don't attack stay-at-home moms for placing family over jobs. That never works for either side of the political spectrum.
Fortunately, no one in that video attacked stay-at-home moms for prioritizing family over jobs.
The actual attack:
"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said.
"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."
I know she didn't actually say that she placed family over jobs. But she was attacked for never 'working'. And usually any attack on a woman for 'never working' is taken as an attack on stay-at-home moms. That doesn't mean that this was the intent of the message, but it is how the political game is played. Speculating about the motivation behind the statement is as much part of the dialog as the actual statement. And pundits will jump on the "she criticized her for never working, she must hate stay-at-home moms" bandwagon. I don't agree with that reasoning, but it will be there.
If she would have just left out that one sentence, then there would be a lot less to criticize about her statement IMO. Even if you are rich like Ann Romney, raising a family is hard and she should not be attacked for it.
There is a difference between a stay at home mom (whom chooses to raise her family herself instead of work) and a women who has never worked a day in her life (because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth).
But even a person with a silver spoon in her mouth can be a very involved mother. This again could be resolved by commenting about her never having to feel the same economic stress and concerns as us common folk instead of commenting about her "never having to work". I would imagine she would feel the same stress when it comes to such thoughts as "I hope my kids get good enough grades to get accepted to a good college", she just doesn't have to worry about the whole "how will we afford college" thing.
I misinterpreted you based on your quoting the commentator as "the actual attack" and then again when you said "but she [Mrs. Romney] was attacked," which I did not understand was being used ironically. Of course, if you did not mean those comments ironically then I did not misinterpret you because you are saying both that the commentator attacked Mrs. Romney and that the commentator did not attack Mrs. Romney.
d-usa wrote:But even a person with a silver spoon in her mouth can be a very involved mother. This again could be resolved by commenting about her never having to feel the same economic stress and concerns as us common folk instead of commenting about her "never having to work". I would imagine she would feel the same stress when it comes to such thoughts as "I hope my kids get good enough grades to get accepted to a good college", she just doesn't have to worry about the whole "how will we afford college" thing.
Except the context of the quote was in regards to less women being able to find and return to jobs, than men are. The whole conversation may have been about economic woes, but the context of the commentator's "She's never worked a day in her life" was in regards to finding employment, something Ann Romney has never had to do. So being an involved mother, or worrying about her children or what not has little to nothing to do with the conversation. The issue at hand is that Ann Romney has never once had to find a job, so her commentary (and thus Mitt's commentary according to him) is beyond useless. She doesn't understand the issues that formerly working women have trying to find new employment, because she has never had employment in the first place.
Grakmar wrote:That being said... this was a rather dumb comment on his part. People can understand, sympathize, and want to correct the plight of others without having to go through it themselves.
"His" part? Are you referring to Romney or did you mean "her" part?
I 100% agree that you don't need personal experience of social misery to be passionately committed to alleviating it. The argument that this commentator made was premised on the idea that a sign of being committed is listening to the people who do have that personal experience. The commentator pointed out that Romney substituted talking to his wife for this, which shows (and I think this is a great point) that Romney thinks "being a woman" in 2012 has nothing to do with, for example, holding a job. For Romney, a woman who has never held a job can apparently speak competently on behalf of the great majority of women who have done.
She has volunteered much of her time to raise awareness of the disease as a Board Member of the New England Chapter of the MS Society, and has been awarded the Society's Inspiration Award. By raising the profile of MS, as well as raising funds for advocacy and research, she is determined to make a difference in the lives of people who suffer from the disease.
Mrs. Romney is a strong believer that faith-based and community organizations can reach some members of our community better than government can. As such, Mrs. Romney served as the Governor's Liaison to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As a dynamic community leader, she has been a long-serving supporter and leader in the United Way of Massachusetts Bay. One of her priorities within the United Way has been as initiator, co-chair and now member of the Faith and Action Committee, a coalition that provides funding to urban church programs designed to serve at-risk youth. She has also served on the Board at the United Way, as well as on their Executive Committee and Community Impact Committee.
Mrs. Romney is dedicated to improving the welfare of children, locally and internationally. She's involved with Right To Play, formerly Olympic Aid, an international nonprofit organization that uses sport and play as a developmental tool for children in the most disadvantaged areas of the world. She lends her time and leadership to equine therapy programs for physically challenged children, literacy programs for children including the annual Scholastic Reading event, as well as organizations such as Partners for Youth with Disabilities, the American Red Cross, and the Perkins School for the Blind. As First Lady, she also served as a board member of the Massachusetts Children's Trust Fund. In recognition for her efforts, Mrs. Romney was the recipient of the 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award from Operation Kids.
Previously, Mrs. Romney was a director of Best Friends, an organization that addresses the special needs of adolescent, inner-city girls by providing educational and community service opportunities. She also worked as a volunteer instructor at the Mother Caroline Academy, a multicultural middle school serving young girls from inner city Boston and served on the board for Families First. She also formerly served on the Women's Cancer Advisory Board of Massachusetts General Hospital.
Obviously she is nothing but a stay at home mom and a slacker....
What "never worked a day in her life" actually means in this case is clear from the context of the conversation. That Mrs. Romney is "a slacker" is clearly not implied. Again, the implication is that Mrs. Romney is not representative of American women.
CptJake wrote:I thought the Obama policy was family members were off limts?
From ABC
“I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a tweet.
Manchu wrote:What "never worked a day in her life" actually means in this case is clear from the context of the conversation. That Mrs. Romney is "a slacker" is clearly not implied. Again, the implication is that Mrs. Romney is not representative of American women.
And it is clear from the context of my post that she HAS worked. So it is inaccurate to claim otherwise, regardless of the context.
Manchu wrote:What "never worked a day in her life" actually means in this case is clear from the context of the conversation. That Mrs. Romney is "a slacker" is clearly not implied. Again, the implication is that Mrs. Romney is not representative of American women.
And it is clear from the context of my post that she HAS worked. So it is inaccurate to claim otherwise, regardless of the context.
It's clear that she volunteered (which, although can be hard work, isn't the same as a job) and sat on a few boards (which is just a cushy position where you show up 4 times a year). Did she ever actually hold a job?
Manchu wrote:What "never worked a day in her life" actually means in this case is clear from the context of the conversation. That Mrs. Romney is "a slacker" is clearly not implied. Again, the implication is that Mrs. Romney is not representative of American women.
And it is clear from the context of my post that she HAS worked. So it is inaccurate to claim otherwise, regardless of the context.
Did any of those occupations actually paid her a salary and required her to keep up with a 9-to-5 work schedule?
Because, while worthy causes, most of them, just look like "rich wife occupations" to me. And that would be the same thing that me saying that assembling and painting toy soldiers would be my idea of working...
I'm just curious but have you ever been on a board for an active program? Not saying the boards she was on were but I'm curious if you have been. Because if even 1/4 of the boards she was a member of were active boards it's quite a bit of time that has to be put in.
@Thread
With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.
@CptJake: It is clear from what you posted that Mrs. Romney has not worked. Presumably you have a job and know the difference between what she has done and working a job. If not, I can be of no further assistance to you.
Manchu wrote:@d-usa:
Content should not be subordinate to presentation. This a great illustration of what is wrong and broken about political discourse in our culture -- that anyone could with a straight face interpret this commentator's remarks as an attack on stay-at-home moms.
Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?
I'm just curious but have you ever been on a board for an active program? Not saying the boards she was on were but I'm curious if you have been. Because if even 1/4 of the boards she was a member of were active boards it's quite a bit of time that has to be put in.
@Thread
With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.
True that. it depends on the board. Some boards do only meet occasionally. Other boards are basically jobs.
Hulksmash wrote:With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.
The issue is about Mitt Romney, not Ann Romney. If Mitt Romney wants to know what American women are concerned about he should be talking to American women -- namely women who have to work at jobs rather than who can afford to donate their time to political and charitable causes instead of holding jobs. But what he says, according to the commentator, is that he knows what American women want based on talking to his wife. For one thing, he's claiming to be more in-touch by talking to someone who is just as out-of-touch. For another, it shows that he doesn't take women seriously as they actually exist in the United States in 2012.
I'm just curious but have you ever been on a board for an active program? Not saying the boards she was on were but I'm curious if you have been. Because if even 1/4 of the boards she was a member of were active boards it's quite a bit of time that has to be put in.
@Thread
With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.
True that. it depends on the board. Some boards do only meet occasionally. Other boards are basically jobs.
AS an aside, with Phanatak and myself posting, with a few more dog faces we can turn this from Dakka into DakkaHund!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.
The issue is about Mitt Romney, not Ann Romney. If Mitt Romney wants to know what American women are concerned about he should be talking to American women -- namely women who have to work at jobs rather than who can afford to donate their time to political and charitable causes instead of holding jobs. But what he says, according to the commentator, is that he knows what American women want based on talking to his wife. For one thing, he's claiming to be more in-touch by talking to someone who is just as out-of-touch. For another, it shows that he doesn't take women seriously as they actually exist in the United States in 2012.
interesting how I don't think this argument was made about Eleanor Roosevelt...
Manchu wrote:@CptJake: It is clear from what you posted that Mrs. Romney has not worked. Presumably you have a job and know the difference between what she has done and working a job. If not, I can be of no further assistance to you.
Again though, these are volunteer and appointed positions. The context of discussion surrounded less women being able to find their way back into the working world, positions requiring interviews, experience, resumes and all the jazz that surrounds that.
These are things, regardless of her volunteer and council positions, that Ann Romney has never had to deal with.
I'm not calling her lazy. I'm not saying she's a slacker. I'm not saying she sits around a mansion all day watching soaps and eating bonbons.
I am saying that (assuming this commentator is correct) she has no experience pertaining to the matters of finding a paid position through the normal channels that your "average" working woman has at her disposal. As such, "never worked a day in her life" is a valid statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?
So The Right only has an issue providing free condoms to sexually active girls, and not sexually active men? So you're saying that The Right is blatantly sexist?
Phanatik wrote:Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?
Yes absolutely! Peddling a slogan like "the War on Women" in reference to that issue is despicable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:interesting how I don't think this argument was made about Eleanor Roosevelt...
If you have an argument, could you please just spare the time to express it as more than an insinuation or jibe?
No I'd rather just bring up Eleanor Roosevelt, who also was wealthy and never worked but was viewed as an icon of knowledge on women's issues. But that was then and this is now.
Having said that, if she is brought in as a major player then, to me, she's fair game. Just like Michelle Obama and just completely unlike Jacqueline Kennedy or Barbara Bush.
streamdragon wrote:I'm not calling her lazy. I'm not saying she's a slacker. I'm not saying she sits around a mansion all day watching soaps and eating bonbons.
It does not matter what you do or do not actually say. All that matters is the implication. And by implication, I mean something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the things that you actually said.
streamdragon wrote:Again though, these are volunteer and appointed positions. The context of discussion surrounded less women being able to find their way back into the working world, positions requiring interviews, experience, resumes and all the jazz that surrounds that.
These are things, regardless of her volunteer and council positions, that Ann Romney has never had to deal with.
I'm not calling her lazy. I'm not saying she's a slacker. I'm not saying she sits around a mansion all day watching soaps and eating bonbons.
I am saying that (assuming this commentator is correct) she has no experience pertaining to the matters of finding a paid position through the normal channels that your "average" working woman has at her disposal. As such, "never worked a day in her life" is a valid statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?
So The Right only has an issue providing free condoms to sexually active girls, and not sexually active men? So you're saying that The Right is blatantly sexist?
Posts like these exuding reasoned argument have no place here young man.
Ok thats just completely wrong. In the public sector there are a variety of full time volunteer positions. indeed many charities and private social agencies could not exist without them.
in a previous life one of She Who Must Be Obeyed's primary management duties was handling the volunteer employees, many who were actively full time.
Indeed, when I win the Lotto (come on baby Jebus test me on this!) this is my future route.
CptJake wrote:She has worked. To state she has not is inaccurate. You can't spin it differently.
It's not about spin. It's about context. "I hit the roof" can mean that I punched the top of someone's house or that I got very angry. "She's never worked a day in her life" can mean that she's has literally never performed any kind of action to achieve a result or it can mean that she has never held a job.
Ok thats just completely wrong. In the public sector there are a variety of full time volunteer positions. indeed many charities and private social agencies could not exist without them.
in a previous life one of She Who Must Be Obeyed's primary management duties was handling the volunteer employees, many who were actively full time.
Indeed, when I win the Lotto (come on baby Jebus test me on this!) this is my future route.
You just argued yourself out... if you don't receive a salary for it then it is not a job in the traditional sense of the word and so "Never worked" is a valid statement in that context.
I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.
I'm not saying that all of her organizations she has/or currently works with are this intensive. Just that if 1/4 of them are the woman has worked.
A lot of boards also do interview for new board members similar to a job interview because....sometimes these are just unpaid jobs with screwed up hours.
Just because someone hasn't had to work 9-5 to feed her family doesn't mean she doesn't work or hasn't had a job.
Also the constant exposure to people in financially hard situations (which most of her charities seem to revolve around) would indicate she probably has a better pulse on large scale worries of the modern woman. So why shouldn't Mitt use a resource like that as an advisor instead of wasting time during an election to talk to individual women.
Sidenote are women not worried about the economy? Every woman I know is even if it's only about how it will effect schools.
The fact that some people are able to spend most of their time volunteering does not mean that volunteering is a job.
yea it can actually. A job is an employment assignment. It can be paid or nonpaid. It can be full time or part time.
You've just not been esxposed to that you capitalist dog!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote:I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.
I'm not saying that all of her organizations she has/or currently works with are this intensive. Just that if 1/4 of them are the woman has worked.
A lot of boards also do interview for new board members similar to a job interview because....sometimes these are just unpaid jobs with screwed up hours.
Just because someone hasn't had to work 9-5 to feed her family doesn't mean she doesn't work or hasn't had a job.
Also the constant exposure to people in financially hard situations (which most of her charities seem to revolve around) would indicate she probably has a better pulse on large scale worries of the modern woman. So why shouldn't Mitt use a resource like that as an advisor instead of wasting time during an election to talk to individual women.
Sidenote are women not worried about the economy? Every woman I know is even if it's only about how it will effect schools.
This!
I was of the running capitalist dog Manchu's view until I ran into the Wife (curse you sippy cups full of margaritas!) and her commie pinko socialist ways (well she is from Illinois). the world of charity/for public welfare organizations is a completely different animal.
Phanatik wrote:Yes, who ever heard of slogans being allowed in politics?
I get that you will criticize everything that I say, no matter what it is. What I don't get is why.
That is an absolute statement which I would not subscribe to. I've no doubt that in this space-time continuum there must be at least a couple of things we could agree on.
Frankly, I believe Democrats and the left-leaning media are responsible for the contentious nature of politics today. Your side is overly quick to b-slap anyone on the right that forgets to cross or dot as needed, while those on the left can say the most heinous things with nary a whisper other than Fox News. So, many on my side have taken the stance that what's good for the goose is good and will rise to the occasion.
Hulksmash wrote:I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.
It does not matter how many hours Mrs. Romney donated to these organizations or how much effort those hours entailed. All that matters is that she did not work to earn money to survive and for that reason she is not representative of women who do so.
Frazzled wrote:A job is an employment assignment.
I can do that, too: a job is a dog that has short legs, an elongated body, and a bad attitude. T-bone is a wicked job.
Phanatik wrote:Frankly, I believe Democrats and the left-leaning media are responsible for the contentious nature of politics today. [...] So, many on my side have taken the stance that what's good for the goose is good and will rise to the occasion.
Fighting fire with fire to put out the fire seems like a bad strategy. Fighting fire with fire is a good strategy, however, if you just want everything to burn.
Hulksmash wrote:Also the constant exposure to people in financially hard situations (which most of her charities seem to revolve around) would indicate she probably has a better pulse on large scale worries of the modern woman.
There are some people who believe that rich people who don't hold jobs know what is best for people who are not rich who do hold jobs. MItt Romney is clearly one of them.
So why shouldn't Mitt use a resource like that as an advisor instead of wasting time during an election to talk to individual women.
The idea that talking to individual women "is a waste of time" that can be avoided by listening to your wife (who has more in common with you than any of them, ovaries aside) is exactly what the commentator was criticizing.
Hulksmash wrote:I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.
It does not matter how many hours Mrs. Romney donated to these organizations or how much effort those hours entailed. All that matters is that she did not work to earn money to survive and for that reason she is not representative of women who do so.
Frazzled wrote:A job is an employment assignment.
I can do that, too: a job is a dog that has short legs, an elongated body, and a bad attitude. T-bone is a wicked job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Frankly, I believe Democrats and the left-leaning media are responsible for the contentious nature of politics today. [...] So, many on my side have taken the stance that what's good for the goose is good and will rise to the occasion.
Fighting fire with fire to put out the fire seems like a bad strategy. Fighting fire with fire is a good strategy, however, if you just want everything to burn.
Son, you better think about that definition before you get married. Your wife will terminate your ass if you tell her only making money is a job, that raising the kids is not a job. I know. I KNOW!
CptJake wrote:Was the statement made she never held a job otr 'She never worked a day in her life"
Again, expressions can have more than one meaning and we can only know what that meaning is by context. Read this again, or for the first time
Manchu wrote:"I hit the roof" can mean that I punched the top of someone's house or that I got very angry. "She's never worked a day in her life" can mean that she's has literally never performed any kind of action to achieve a result or it can mean that she has never held a job.
CptJake wrote:Also clarify how Mr. Mod sees volunteer work as non-work.
I said volunteering is not a job. You just quoted me on that, although I cannot assume that means you read what I posted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Son, you better think about that definition before you get married. Your wife will terminate your ass if you tell her only making money is a job, that raising the kids is not a job.
I am married. My mother-in-law was a stay-at-home mom of five. She also home schooled the youngest three. She did not have a job. This does not mean or even imply that what she did has no dignity or took no effort.
We're going to have to agree to disagree Manchu since it appears to me that you hold the belief that you can only be knowledgable about something if you've experienced it we're never going to agree.
Hulksmash wrote:We're going to have to agree to disagree Manchu since it appears to me that you hold the belief that you can only be knowledgable about something if you've experienced it we're never going to agree.
I don't think you have grasped what I am saying:
Grakmar wrote:People can understand, sympathize, and want to correct the plight of others without having to go through it themselves.
Manchu wrote:I 100% agree that you don't need personal experience of social misery to be passionately committed to alleviating it. The argument that this commentator made was premised on the idea that a sign of being committed is listening to the people who do have that personal experience. The commentator pointed out that Romney substituted talking to his wife for this, which shows (and I think this is a great point) that Romney thinks "being a woman" in 2012 has nothing to do with, for example, holding a job. For Romney, a woman who has never held a job can apparently speak competently on behalf of the great majority of women who have done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:Her evaluation of the dignity and worth of her life is not based on the misuse of a word.
Thats al well and good, but don't tell her that.
She actually taught me that. Listening to women is a good thing.
First off: Someone involved in politics said something stupid?
And?
Some of you are excited/outraged/surprised rather easily.
Also it is highly amusing that many of the same individuals that have been falling all over themselves to make excuses for a whole range of outrageous/racist/zealous/homophobic/idiotic/inappropriate statements by the opposition ( many of them spoken by the actual candidates, not some random person as in this case) in thread after thread now want us to believe that we should see this as over the line?
Could I please have some of whatever you guys are smoking?
CT GAMER wrote:Even if one has smart things to say, from a political standpoint one must consider how and when one says them, and if it is your place to say them.
Mrs. Romney could be offended by the comment if she really wanted to misunderstand it. I am disgusted that the Obama Campaign has criticized the comment.
Personally I'm against involving families in politics however it seems in this case Romney brought his wife into the game and she got attacked after that.
It would have been classier to leave her out of any replies, of course.
When you elect a president you elect his wife to First Lady too, so you should probably think about her. (Which is why Romney brought his wife into play.)
Mitt Romney positioned the rhetoric so that it was impossible not to bring up the fact that Ann Romney has never had a job. Not addressing it would not be "classier." It would be pretending that Mitt Romney treating his totally unrepresentative wife as representative of American women is okay.
CT GAMER wrote:
Some of you are excited/outraged/surprised rather easily.
Says the guy that posted a video of Santorum not and/or almost saying something.
Thanks for proving my point.
As to the link I posted: I posted for discussion and didn't make any initial statement, I asked for opinions(hence the question marks)
Notice this thread states he is a hack and starts off with the assumption.
There is a difference.
Yes, I said SHE is a hack, a political hack. Its her job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:Even if one has smart things to say, from a political standpoint one must consider how and when one says them, and if it is your place to say them.
Mrs. Romney could be offended by the comment if she really wanted to misunderstand it. I am disgusted that the Obama Campaign has criticized the comment.
Because if they play this wrong, they could almost instantly lose the soccer mom vote. That would motivate me.
CT GAMER wrote:
Some of you are excited/outraged/surprised rather easily.
Says the guy that posted a video of Santorum not and/or almost saying something.
Thanks for proving my point.
As to the link I posted: I posted for discussion and didn't make any initial statement, I asked for opinions(hence the question marks)
Notice this thread states he is a hack and starts off with the assumption.
There is a difference.
now that I know you didn't bother to read or watch the OP, the statement was made by a woman about a woman. Well...if you consider Hilary Rosen a woman.
Manchu wrote:I did say it was on a volunteer basis.
So are you saying I am a hack attack or an attack hack? If by asking are you you in fact attacking the attack hack (or was it hack attack?) since you're not paid would you say its a hack attack on an attack hack?
CT GAMER wrote:... not some random person as in this case...
Actually, this random person has been to the white house about 36 times and has met with Obama 3-4 times, and worked with Dunn to bring us the Fluke flap.
This random person said Mrs. Romney has never worked a day in her life, which suggests class warfare. The semantic two-step burning up this thread is merely to distract from the left's war on conservative women, ably illustrated by the left's Palin hysteria.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nevermind, I looked it up on wikipedia and found it meant exactly what I thought: how many people have filed for unemployment benefits.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nevermind, I looked it up on wikipedia and found it meant exactly what I thought: how many people have filed for unemployment benefits.
Did wiki mention that Obama has wiped 2.3 million jobs off the rolls since he's been in office? That's why the unemployment rate that gets reported is below 9%.
Manchu wrote:No. But to be fair it didn't mention anything about roller coasters or octopuses or tambourines and so I think it might have been biased.
I think you've stumbled onto something here Manchu you running capitalist dog you. We need a thread that involves roller coasters, octopii, and tambourines. Come on I expect results!
Frazzled wrote:Because if they play this wrong, they could almost instantly lose the soccer mom vote.
Now you're hoping and not keeping it real. This thread will probably have more legs than the actual story unless the GOP can weave that into some larger narrative about the Democrats' anti-women policies. Or into some narrative about how Romney is really the more regular guy who faced regular problems, etc. in his life. Which is pretty doubtful.
Had Obama said it, it might be a different thing. Heck, if it was one of his immediate advisors, it'd be something. But since it was some Dem that no one's ever heard of, it's a weaksauce story that will be over almost immediately.
Well, let's just assume Mrs. Romney can do. But she's still not the right person to solely form a presidential candidates view of what American women care about. Mother Theresa was a good person to ask about poverty not only because she cared for the poor but because she lived in the austerity of poverty herself. And I think if you asked Mother Theresa about the poor she would probably tell you to go and meet with some poor people (after hitting you up for some money, of course).
CT GAMER wrote:
Some of you are excited/outraged/surprised rather easily.
Says the guy that posted a video of Santorum not and/or almost saying something.
Thanks for proving my point.
As to the link I posted: I posted for discussion and didn't make any initial statement, I asked for opinions(hence the question marks)
Notice this thread states he is a hack and starts off with the assumption.
There is a difference.
now that I know you didn't bother to read or watch the OP, the statement was made by a woman about a woman. Well...if you consider Hilary Rosen a woman.
CT GAMER wrote:Last I checked Frazz is a man.
I never referenced the clip itself in my post.
You had that opportunity to address that statement as a type and instead defended it. You said:
"Notice this thread states he is a hack and starts off with the assumption."
This thread was created by Frazz, whom as you pointed out is a man; in which he does not call himself a hack. HE states that SHE(Rosen) is a hack, and starts from that assumption.
You either made a typo, an option you refused, are incredibly unclear in your sentence structure (seems likely), or jumped into the thread feet first without bothering to read much if any of it (seems more likely).
Welcome to The OT I suppose.
CT GAMER:
/doesn't read thread
/lashes out at posters he disagrees with
/engages in blind partisan demagoguery
Manchu wrote:Well, let's just assume Mrs. Romney can do. But she's still not the right person to solely form a presidential candidates view of what American women care about. Mother Theresa was a good person to ask about poverty not only because she cared for the poor but because she lived in the austerity of poverty herself. And I think if you asked Mother Theresa about the poor she would probably tell you to go and meet with some poor people (after hitting you up for some money, of course).
This.
Romney is seen as not being in touch with women's interests or needs. He counters that women have lost a lot of jobs in the last few years, and he hears that their concern is those jobs. Having and keeping them, and supporting their families. These are Romney's statements.
Then he says that he knows this because he talks to a person who has never had to make a resume for, send out dozens of applications for, and interview for a job to support a family. Someone who's never worked 9-5 (much less evenings or weekends), had to worry about whether the job provided sufficient (or any) health insurance or time off for their family, etc. Ann Romney may be a wonderful person, who worked hard to raise her kids and donates time to worthy causes, but she's not (or shouldn't be) anyone's primary source of information on the needs and feelings of working women.
Mannahnin wrote:Ann Romney may be a wonderful person, who worked hard to raise her kids and donates time to worthy causes, but she's not (or shouldn't be) anyone's primary source of information on the needs and feelings of working women.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I read what Romney said as:
"while I've been campaigning my wife has talked to voters on the campaign trail, namely the ones with ladyparts , and they have candidly told her X"
I can say with a limited degree of certainty this is the role that a political canidate's wife has played for quite some time. To form a bridge of understanding between the sexes based on listening to one's partner (who happens to be of that sex) seems pretty normal. The same way I trust my wife to tell me how the teachers and students at her school think and react, since I am niether a teacher or Title 1 school student. Whether she has experienced those hardships or not ceases to be the issue at that point, and she's just passing information. How bloody dare she; what a gossip.
I expect when I campaign in 2036 for my wife to tell me about her experiences with the voters; especially the ones that speak Spainish and women. Since I feel I have a pretty good grasp on the one's that are men and speak English since we have those things in common.
CT GAMER wrote:... not some random person as in this case...
Actually, this random person has been to the white house about 36 times and has met with Obama 3-4 times, and worked with Dunn to bring us the Fluke flap.
This random person said Mrs. Romney has never worked a day in her life, which suggests class warfare. The semantic two-step burning up this thread is merely to distract from the left's war on conservative women, ably illustrated by the left's Palin hysteria.
Cheers!
I'll trade you one "left war on conservative women" for any number of the rights questionable crusades. Which one do you want to trade: "the anti-gay crusade"? "the beware the socialist fearmongering movement"? Or one of the many other "wars" the right perpetuates on a regular basis?
AustonT wrote:I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I read what Romney said as:
"while I've been campaigning my wife has talked to voters on the campaign trail, namely the ones with ladyparts , and they have candidly told her X"
I can say with a limited degree of certainty this is the role that a political canidate's wife has played for quite some time. To form a bridge of understanding between the sexes based on listening to one's partner (who happens to be of that sex) seems pretty normal. The same way I trust my wife to tell me how the teachers and students at her school think and react, since I am niether a teacher or Title 1 school student. Whether she has experienced those hardships or not ceases to be the issue at that point, and she's just passing information.
If your wife works at a school, then she has real first-hand experience and knowledge with which to inform you. She's not divorced from that situation the way a person who's never had to work and has a car for each of their multiple homes is from employment/unemployment concerns. Is Ann Romney running focus groups to learn about the concerns of working women? Or is she just shaking hands and listening to the comments of some women who are motivated to come out to a Romney campaign event? It sounds like Mitt's getting info from someone who's probably as out of touch as he is. Again, I'm sure Mrs. Romney is great. No disparagement to her.
Phanatik wrote:
Frankly, I believe Democrats and the left-leaning media are responsible for the contentious nature of politics today.
I always love it when people fail to take responsibility for their own actions.
Manchu wrote:And I think if you asked Mother Theresa about the poor she would probably tell you to go and meet with some poor people (after hitting you up for some money, of course).
There's a story, or possibly a quote, I vaguely remember about the Dalai Lama. In essence, he was approached regarding advice on raising a child, and he refused to give any. He said that he is an expert on spiritual matters, but not on children, and that the questioner should ask people who have raised children.
In this instance, I generally agree with the commentary on Romney's statements.
However, I think it was a mistake to focus on slipping some family rhetoric into a speech. While Romney might listen to his wife on women's issues, I suspect he listens to his advisers and consultants more intently, and there is nothing to be gained by criticizing a husband claiming to consider his wife's views.
CT GAMER wrote:I'll trade you one "left war on conservative women" for any number of the rights questionable crusades. Which one do you want to trade: "the anti-gay crusade"? "the beware the socialist fearmongering movement"? Or one of the many other "wars" the right perpetuates on a regular basis?
First of all, what really chaps our pass on this issue is the hypocrisy of the left. Where are the feminists to defend a woman? Oh wait, it's a conservative woman, so it doesn't matter.
Socialist fearmongering? Does that include the socialists/marxists/communists on Obama's staff? How about yesterday's reports of the college with the communist professors teaching marxist principles and community activism? How about this morning's report of a self-avowed communist that has just been appointed to head a teacher's union? No doubt we are tilting at windmills when it comes to the angry red menace.
Is it an anti-gay crusade to oppose special rights for someone because of their sexual orientation? I'm an atheist, but I want to protect the institution of marriage. Gay people still have the right to marry, just not each other.
Cheers!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
Manchu wrote:Well, let's just assume Mrs. Romney can do. But she's still not the right person to solely form a presidential candidates view of what American women care about. Mother Theresa was a good person to ask about poverty not only because she cared for the poor but because she lived in the austerity of poverty herself. And I think if you asked Mother Theresa about the poor she would probably tell you to go and meet with some poor people (after hitting you up for some money, of course).
This.
Romney is seen as not being in touch with women's interests or needs. He counters that women have lost a lot of jobs in the last few years, and he hears that their concern is those jobs. Having and keeping them, and supporting their families. These are Romney's statements.
Then he says that he knows this because he talks to a person who has never had to make a resume for, send out dozens of applications for, and interview for a job to support a family. Someone who's never worked 9-5 (much less evenings or weekends), had to worry about whether the job provided sufficient (or any) health insurance or time off for their family, etc. Ann Romney may be a wonderful person, who worked hard to raise her kids and donates time to worthy causes, but she's not (or shouldn't be) anyone's primary source of information on the needs and feelings of working women.
If Romney had said that his wife had never worked a day in her life so he doesn't listen to her when it comes to economic issues these very same people, plus everyone else on the left, would have excoriated Romney for denigrating women, including stay-at-home moms.
I heard this one, and am shocked that none of the media, or talk shows, or anyone seems to have gotten to the real bit of what it was.
Ann Romney has friends, other women mostly I would imagine, some with jobs, most married, and probably most with kids. Her friends are worried about the economy, she finds this out easily, by talking with her friends, and listening to them. She then relays to her husband that she hears women are mostly concerned about the economy and talk about it frequently.
Then some opposition polical worker states that Ann knows nothing about these economic woes, completely missing the point.
Then everyone gets caught up in bickering and spin, and forgets to look through it all and find out what actually happened and what it means.
Some people are worried about losing a million dollars of their billion dollars. Some people are worried that their kids won't have anything for dinner tomorrow. Those "in-between" are a lot closer to the latter than the former.
Phanatik wrote:
First of all, what really chaps our pass on this issue is the hypocrisy of the left. Where are the feminists to defend a woman? Oh wait, it's a conservative woman, so it doesn't matter.
Your first problem is assuming the left is a monolith.
Your second problem is assuming people like Palin are mocked for being women, and not for being stupid, or simply conservative.
See, that's where this argument sort of breaks down. Feminists will defend other feminists, and women, when they are mocked for being either feminists, or women. But when they're mocked for being either stupid, or conservative, there is no impulse. Trying to hand wave criticism of Palin by claiming its her femininity in concert with her conservatism that people don't like is like saying the only reason people don't like Obama is because he's black. Its a pathetic attempt at politicking, and an even worse attempt at a dodge.
Phanatik wrote:
No doubt we are tilting at windmills when it comes to the angry red menace.
Pretty much.
Phanatik wrote:
Is it an anti-gay crusade to oppose special rights for someone because of their sexual orientation?
Ah, the special rights argument, I thought that was sent to the dust bin a while ago.
Oh well, that Phanatik makes awful arguments is a well established truism.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Ann Romney has friends, other women mostly I would imagine, some with jobs, most married, and probably most with kids. Her friends are worried about the economy, she finds this out easily, by talking with her friends, and listening to them. She then relays to her husband that she hears women are mostly concerned about the economy and talk about it frequently.
I suspect Ann Romney's friends are mostly women much like herself: very wealthy.
I also suspect that Ann Romney didn't relay information to her husband, and that the turn of phrase was planned to make Romney look more sympathetic.
Manchu wrote:Some people are worried about losing a million dollars of their billion dollars. Some people are worried that their kids won't have anything for dinner tomorrow. Those "in-between" are a lot closer to the latter than the former.
True, but life has always been like that. And I think any attempt to "solve" the disparity causes more harm than good.
Fortunately, the U.S. has the richest poor people in the world. I believe (according to the IRS - who keep track of this stuff when they are not enforcing Obamacare) people under the poverty line in the U.S. have a couple of cars, a couple of t.v.s, cable, and at least one cellphone, on average.
Phanatik wrote:
True, but life has always been like that. And I think any attempt to "solve" the disparity causes more harm than good.
Seeing as the US, along with all developed nations, have been attempting to at least mitigate the effects of the disparity, and have become "developed nations" in the process, the evidence clearly isn't in your favor.
You could be right dogma.. pretty much everything is political strategy by politicians especially in an election cycle.
I can tell you however as a woman who is not extremely wealthy and with no very wealthy friends. Our number one issue is the economy. The parents I know who are a little better off (middle-upper middle class) also worry about the economy, they have children who are graduating highschool soon with little prospect of employment.
So the economy being the big issue rings true, whether it was set up as politics or not.
No question that the economy is most people's priority.
Our politicians (on both sides of the aisle) and irresponsible banks drove it into a ditch. Terrible, stupid, shortsighted investment schemes and lending practices which should have had proper oversight have resulted in most Americans losing a lot of money and suffering a lot of insecurity. The wages of regular people have been stagnant for decades, and people have tried to make up for the shortfall through credit, racking up excessive debt and screwing themselves and their families over longterm.
From my view the Dems are still too sympathetic to corporate interests, but at least they make nods toward sane oversight and regulation. They try to put some controls in place. Whereas the Repub politicos argue against restraining the guys and corps who raped us the last time. "No, those guys didn't rape us. They're big and strong and will protect us and take care of us! Let them do what they want to do and we'll all be better off!" Of course if we let them do what they want Romney and other wealthy people WILL be better off, but the rest of us will inevitably get raped again.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:You could be right dogma.. pretty much everything is political strategy by politicians especially in an election cycle.
I can tell you however as a woman who is not extremely wealthy and with no very wealthy friends. Our number one issue is the economy. The parents I know who are a little better off (middle-upper middle class) also worry about the economy, they have children who are graduating highschool soon with little prospect of employment.
So the economy being the big issue rings true, whether it was set up as politics or not.
No doubt, I just sort of think Romney should give up on trying to seem personable, he's bad at it, and really its just damage done; no one is going to say "Yeah, Romney, great guy." no matter what he does. Leave the wife and family out of it, its pretty clearly fabricated or minimally injected to try and cover his weaknesses, and just argue that the economy is a women's issues, because it affects women. People that might vote for him will buy that, and it plays directly to his biggest strength: business experience.
That said, I'm generally of the school that, in politics, you should always play to your strengths rather than attempt to cover weaknesses, unless they are also your opponents weaknesses and you have a chance at edging him out. I don't think Romney can do anything to seem more down to Earth than Obama, even though Obama isn't seen as down to Earth. Santorum could have done that, but not Romney.
Listening to him try to sell himself to the NRA on the radio today was pretty painful. A, he's not a gun guy. B, Obama's really done nothing anti-gun. The last few years have been great, legislatively, for the NRA.
Mannahnin wrote:
From my view the Dems are still too sympathetic to corporate interests, but at least they make nods toward sane oversight and regulation. They try to put some controls in place. Whereas the Repub politicos argue against restraining the guys and corps who raped us the last time. "No, those guys didn't rape us. They're big and strong and will protect us and take care of us! Let them do what they want to do and we'll all be better off!" Of course if we let them do what they want Romney and other wealthy people WILL be better off, but the rest of us will inevitably get raped again.
Its basically just one huge mess. There's no doubt that we need regulatory reform, but that's a really difficult process that is going to involve a lot of horse trading if what emerges on the other side is going to be any good. The problem is that its gotten to the point where no one is really willing to trade horses because, ultimately, the people that regularly go out and vote don't want horses to be traded. I'm sure there are some politicians that have personal commitments to certain issues, but in the age where RINO is considered legitimate criticism, and Obama somehow betrayed liberals, I doubt its the real driving force.
People are always quick to blame politicians, and no doubt they're at fault, but in a democracy the gak rolls down The Hill.
Mannahnin wrote:Listening to him try to sell himself to the NRA on the radio today was pretty painful. A, he's not a gun guy. B, Obama's really done nothing anti-gun. The last few years have been great, legislatively, for the NRA.
Yeah, I'm reserving judgment till he hits the general, because I suspect he's now basically just drumming up as much support as he can before he has to drift to the middle, but I haven't liked a lot of his campaign choices thus far. It reminds me a lot of McCain's scatterbrained campaign, and as such I eagerly await his veep selection.
He (Romney) doesn't really have to drift too far to drift to the middle.
He was Governor in a state that did the whole Socialized Healthcare thing, and legalized gay marriage, the same state that elected Ted Kennedy for decades. A very politically liberal state.
He says "of course because that is what the state wanted, and being a states rights issue, they could have it."
But, to get elected a "Republican" Governor of such a state, you have to be pretty well moderate already.
If you have been paying attention he is already being heavily critized by a lot of folk for being a populist candidate. I do not see how going middle is a winning strategy, it worked out so well for McCain, who was the mass media darling, all the way up until he was the nominee, then everyone screamed "too conversative" though he was luke warm middle on his best of days.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
If you have been paying attention he is already being heavily critized by a lot of folk for being a populist candidate. I do not see how going middle is a winning strategy, it worked out so well for McCain, who was the mass media darling, all the way up until he was the nominee, then everyone screamed "too conversative" though he was luke warm middle on his best of days.
The people that screamed that would never vote for a GOP candidate...and then he nominated Palin.
Either way, Romney can't go right, he doesn't have the credentials, and in fact his credentials prevent it. He is the GOP Kerry.
Back in 2000 I knew tons of independents and even some liberals who supported McCain. McCain was seen as centrist and independent, until he got swift-boated in the 2000 primaries, and then he drifted more and more toward toeing the party line. By the time 2008 rolled around, his voting record made him look like a wise old veteran who had sold out and made himself over as a lapdog to the neoconservatives. And then you had the Palin debacle, which took a guy who always came across as "country first", and made it look like all he actually cared about was winning, as he made a move toward women voters which turned out to be tragically unvetted and disastrous.
Mannahnin wrote:Back in 2000 I knew tons of independents and even some liberals who supported McCain. McCain was seen as centrist and independent, until he got swift-boated in the 2000 primaries, and then he drifted more and more toward toeing the party line. By the time 2008 rolled around, his voting record made him look like a wise old veteran who had sold out and made himself over as a lapdog to the neoconservatives. And then you had the Palin debacle, which took a guy who always came across as "country first", and made it look like all he actually cared about was winning, as he made a move toward women voters which turned out to be tragically unvetted and disastrous.
I always sort of felt bad for McCain. I'm actually glad he didn't win, not because I wanted Obama to win, but because he seemed like a man that deserved retirement; real retirement. The way he changed through the Bush years...the shift in the GOP towards the right seemed to wear on him even then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:@dogma - so basically you and I agree here. That the only real way Romney can win is enough people turn up to vote for "Not Obama".
Basically, yes. If I were advising him, I would tell him to do two things:
1: Demonstrate that you're not Obama without resorting to attacks.
2: Avoid moving to the right, if at all possible.
The problem he'll have is that this combination of principles is very difficult, and potentially impossible, to pull off.
Its going to be a close election, no doubt, but Romney has a battle that will be much more difficult than the numbers appear to indicate. It very likely will come down to what Obama does, and not what Romney does, which is a situation no one wants to be in.
