Ann Romney is once again up on her gold-plated cross, and she's got another message for the ingrates out there who don't appreciate how hard it is to be her:
During an interview early this evening with Radio Iowa, Mrs. Romney directly addressed her fellow Republicans who’ve criticized her husband.
“Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring,” she said. “This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country.”
Ann has told "you people" time and time again to leave Mitt alone, stop asking questions, and just be grateful that he's willing to run for president. Shut up and show a little appreciation for the Romneys and their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice—passing up constant $30 million-a-year job offers, even though "poor guy, he took no pay when he did the Olympics for three years and no pay when he was governor for four years."
"Women, you need to wake up," she urged them. "Women have to ask themselves who's going to have and be there for you. I can promise you, I know, that Mitt will be there for you. He will stand up for you, he will hear your voices."
You’d better really look at your future and figure out who’s going to be the guy that’s going to make it better for you and your children, and there is only one answer. [...]
It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community.
But no. You people just won't let up, with the mockery of the Romneys' car elevator; with the questions about all those millions stashed away in secret bank accounts; with the outright disgust at Ann's tales of woe about struggling to survive on Mitt's inherited stock portfolio.*
But you people—you women, you Latinos, you Democrats and now you Republicans—just don't get it. You're so mean and classless with all your questions and doubt and disgust. Heck, that's why Ann so astutely noted:
My horse has more style and more class in its hoof than they do in their whole deal.
Ugh. You people. You just have no idea how hard it is to be Ann. Just stop it.
No Michelle Obama, that's for sure. This may be a little harsh, overall. I sympathize with her that Presidential campaigning is a tough thing. This is the danger of getting out on the campaign trail and campaigning. People listen to what you say, fact-check and judge it.
*I like that link detailing what a pile of BS Ann's story about their poor college years was. Poor them, with only the 1960s equivalent of $377,000 in stock to live off of, so Ann never had to work. They definitely understand the struggles of folks who are unemployed.
I really wish she would just stay out. She comes off kinda like the "Leave Britney Alone guy"
Also stop asking questions? Isnt that the antithesis to what we are supposed to do? Just accept his "Qualifications" as enough to make him president?
How are people like Mitt and his ilk 'there for women' when they want to erode rights on topics like abortion? Or maybe we need to go over some of the boneheaded remarks made about rape again (actually don't, we've had those threads).
Howard A Treesong wrote: How are people like Mitt and his ilk 'there for women' when they want to erode rights on topics like abortion? Or maybe we need to go over some of the boneheaded remarks made about rape again (actually don't, we've had those threads).
Well the question is over whether abortion is a right or not. So if you don't believe something is a right you can't be accused of denying it.
Sometimes you don't choose the intercourse. Sometimes (rarely) the condom breaks. Sometimes you're using an alternate method of contraception and (again, not often) it fails.
I still believe its immoral to have an abortion as it ends a human life. The above circumstances are unfortunate for sure, but we must draw a line in the sand.
The child can be put up for adoption if it is not wanted. There are plenty of people that can't have children that want them. to throw away their lives is criminal.
Since you can't get pregnant, your perspective on this is not optimal. You will never run the risk of pregnancy, the nine months of physical transformation, likely sickness and disability for at least part of it, and (albeit small) chance of death.
And whether it's a human life IS subject to debate. At least one person on this forum, who was an unwanted child, has spoken about how much that sucked growing up. Not all children are desired for adoption, sadly. Terminating the life of a conceptus, at least before a certain point, is NOT criminal in this country.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that its a cellular being from the moment of fertilization, I'll choose to say its human from that moment onward.
The fetus has a heartbeat within 18 days of fertilization. Which is before most women will even have a clue they are pregnant.
A chicken also has a heatbeat. Do you eat meat? We choose to end nonhuman lives for our own convenience and enjoyment every day.
A conceptus may have a heartbeat early, but it won't have any brain activity for much longer. A person is only a person if they have thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. When a person becomes so brain-damaged that they are what we call "brain dead", they are normally not considered to be alive anymore, in the sense that the person is GONE. Only the unfeeling, unthinking corpus remains. A fetus prior to brain activity is even LESS alive, because there has never been a personality. The face (if it has one yet) has never been identified with a personality, a name, a human being relating to other human beings. An animal is much more of a person than a fetus. And again, we kill animals for food and even for fun.
Now this is not to say that abortion should be considered easy or convenient. For virtually every woman who gets one, it's a very difficult decision. Many women who support abortion rights would not choose to get one themselves, but recognize the necessity of its legality. A guy standing on the sidelines, who will never be forced with that consequence on their own body, is hardly in a position to render absolute judgements. Abortion is an issue on which the nation is genuinely divided, but most people are clear that it's a necessary option, which must be protected. If you only poll women; the people directly at risk if it were criminalized again, the right has overwhelming support. If men could get pregnant, I have no doubt whatsoever that it wouldn't even be a debate.
Mannahnin wrote: Since you can't get pregnant, your perspective on this is not optimal. You will never run the risk of pregnancy, the nine months of physical transformation, likely sickness and disability for at least part of it, and (albeit small) chance of death.
And whether it's a human life IS subject to debate. At least one person on this forum, who was an unwanted child, has spoken about how much that sucked growing up. Not all children are desired for adoption, sadly. Terminating the life of a conceptus, at least before a certain point, is NOT criminal in this country.
Exactly, Adoption is a lengthy and expensive process. They will want to make sure the child they have will be at very low risk for many phyisical and mental problems. They willl most liekly want someone with their body type and skin color.
And they dont want someone who has a pre-disposition to diseases.
.... A guy standing on the sidelines, who will never be forced with that consequence on their own body, is hardly in a position to render absolute judgements.
Balogny...why should a man have to sit on the sidelines while the woman carrying his child decides to kill his baby. Baby killing is wrong period...and I wonder how you can consider yourself a moral person while justifying it.
I consider you an immoral person for judging others, despite the commandments of your god. I also don't believe it's actually a baby until it has brain activity.
Anyway, can we get the thread back on topic? None of this is about Ann Romney or the difficulties the Romneys are facing on the campaign.
Assuming that it actually isn't a thinking being until it has a developed brain,
Whats to say the meare fact that it will be a human if left alone doesn't give it the right to live.
And then we have that Abortions are almost always conducted well after measurable brain activity has begun.
Why is it that if you kill a 1 hour old baby its murder. But kill it a month earlier and its an abortion, especially considering that a month ago it could easily survive being born premature with nominal medical attention.
Grey Templar, given the demonstrably false* statements you have just made, any further posts along those lines will be treated as trolling. Please return to the topic.
*EEG activity begins around the 25th week of pregnancy. The majority of abortions are performed less than 8 weeks in, and 95% before 16 weeks.
It costs more to fund unwanted pregnancies and children than it does for a woman to have a pill a day or a single medical treatment to end a pregnancy.
I suppose you are happy to pay the massive tax increases required to fund the policy of forcing your (and I'm going to say it here as to be honest I am tired of it, WRONG) views on everyone else?
.... A guy standing on the sidelines, who will never be forced with that consequence on their own body, is hardly in a position to render absolute judgements.
Balogny...why should a man have to sit on the sidelines while the woman carrying his child decides to kill his baby. Baby killing is wrong period...and I wonder how you can consider yourself a moral person while justifying it.
GG
GG, Do you eat Eggs?
That is baby killing. Some Eggs may get fertilized before they are taken from their mothers.
Ok, this woman is about as out of touch with reality as her husband and the apparent majority of American (or indeed most nationalities) politicians.
I don't see why anyone in their right mind would vote for him and it makes me feel very tired with the world where people like him are not only in with a shot of ruling one of the most powerful countries in the world, but that many such people already are.
From the look of it, very few are voting for him.
He has been kinda arrogant lately, thinking he is already president.
If i remember correctly, a few time he has said "When im president....."
To many that comes off as arrogance.
I was watching How The States Got Their Shapes* a long while ago and they were talking about Utah. They interviewed a number of BYU students and I remember there being a particular colloquialism for girls looking for husbands. I can't remember what it was, but I know there was one.
*One of the only really good History Channel shows.
Mannahnin wrote: This may be a little harsh, overall. I sympathize with her that Presidential campaigning is a tough thing.
She sounds like she truly loves her husband. Though it also reminds me of how my mom defended me when I would get picked on in grade school.
Grey Templar wrote: Its made when you decide not to use a condom during intercourse.
Condoms break.
Howard A Treesong wrote: How are people like Mitt and his ilk 'there for women' when they want to erode rights on topics like abortion?
Ann Romney is 63, bear that in mind, she is clearly speaking from a different position of what it means to be "there" for a woman; primarily one of financial security and emotional support. As I said, I recall there being a particular term at BYU regarding girls seeking men to marry.
Of course, that doesn't help Mitt's out-of-touch problem.
Am i the only one who gets kinda scared from her face. Her face looks kinda harsh. Not saying she is ugly, but she looks angry or evil when she smiles.
You are seriously comparing Abortion to going over the speed limit.
I say women do have a choice. Its made when you decide not to use a condom during intercourse.
Just like women have the choice to not get raped. Just like women have the choice to have perfectly healthy babies. Just like women have the choice to have 100% working condoms and birth control pills.
Ann's said a bunch of things at this point (as shown in the links), some of which are clearly false or disingenuous, and some of which really come off as having a terrible attitude and sense of entitlement.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Am i the only one who gets kinda scared from her face. Her face looks kinda harsh. Not saying she is ugly, but she looks angry or evil when she smiles.
IIRC correctly, she suffers from MS--and given her wealth, has probably received a truck load of steroidal treatments around the clock (maybe for years). Long term steroidal use will result in a "moon face" and more masculine features. Another example would be Kathleen Turner (whom I would also guess has used steroids for some type of autoimmune disease);
Which, if my hunch about her IV steroid use is correct---ironically this is an example of someone whom can afford to pay direct, (likely) out of pocket cost for a medical treatment that others are often denied (Or come to the ER and beg for the on call physician to treat and bill later).
Mannahnin wrote: This may be a little harsh, overall. I sympathize with her that Presidential campaigning is a tough thing.
I don't particularly care for the Daily Kos, it's one notch above hate speech, sometimes they forget that notch. I'm honestly a little surprised you posted from it Mann.
I think Ann's comments are appropriate and well aimed at Republicans critical of you know, the abortion that is his campaign. If they thought they could've done better the should have run. She's no Michelle Obama is an understatement, but I'm also no particular fan of the First Lady's public persona so it's par for the course.
Grey Templar wrote:I still believe its immoral to have an abortion as it ends a human life. The above circumstances are unfortunate for sure, but we must draw a line in the sand.
The child can be put up for adoption if it is not wanted. There are plenty of people that can't have children that want them. to throw away their lives is criminal.
Then you shouldn't have an abortion, which is your choice.
While Ann Romney's complaints may be more ridiculous, none of it put bile in my throat like Michelle Obama's 'mom in chief' line.
This may be a little harsh, overall. I sympathize with her that Presidential campaigning is a tough thing.
It is tough, for sure. I think it's one of those things where we're more likely to accept it's tough and sympathise with someone when they shut up and stop complaining about it themselves.
Mannahnin wrote: Ann's said a bunch of things at this point (as shown in the links), some of which are clearly false or disingenuous, and some of which really come off as having a terrible attitude and sense of entitlement.
That happens to rich people a lot. You get more than other people, it's only natural that you assume it's because you deserve more than other people.
It isn't really a reason to condemn a rich person, as most likely anyone else in the same position will make the same assumption. But it is a really good reason to not have people like that in positions of power over us normal folk.
Wait a minute. How come when Whembly posts something from some right-wing blog site, guys - including the one who started this thread - come down on him like a ton of bricks, but something from the DailyKos gets in without so much as a batted eye?
This interview's all over the place, I'm sure you could have found a non-editorialized version that just presented facts.
Seaward wrote: Wait a minute. How come when Whembly posts something from some right-wing blog site, guys - including the one who started this thread - come down on him like a ton of bricks, but something from the DailyKos gets in without so much as a batted eye?
Because there's a difference between starting a conversation based on something from a political website, and substituting punditry from political websites for original debate.
I don't think anyone here would accuse Mannahnin of just posting political diatribes from other websites, and while I don't think that is true of Whembly either, I can see how some people could have gained that image.
Remember guys, stay on topic. And abortion is not the topic.
Mannahnin: I swear to God I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says, " Abortions."
Mac: Hey Farva what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the babies on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
Farva: You mean Abortions?
Mac: OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Thorny: OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
[as they hand the Mannahnin their pistols]
I don't care much about what Ann Romney thinks or believes in since she's not running for office. The only "usefulness" she has is what insight she offers into Mr. Romney; but there is nothing groundbreaking to be gleaned there, either: super privileged people live super privileged lives with fancy horses and summer homes and many, many different forks of varying sizes. If there is a counterpoint to the value of her beliefs I'm willing to listen but I'm not seeing it right now.
Howard A Treesong wrote: How are people like Mitt and his ilk 'there for women' when they want to erode rights on topics like abortion? Or maybe we need to go over some of the boneheaded remarks made about rape again (actually don't, we've had those threads).
Well the question is over whether abortion is a right or not. So if you don't believe something is a right you can't be accused of denying it.
I think you and other pro-lifers missed the point. How is Mitt 'there for women' when he'd like to take away their current rights to certain choices? It's not about your personal opinion on whether you think it's okay, that's a choice for you and your partner. You may choose not to, others may choose to do so. The fact that women have the freedom and access to services to make that choice is something that people like Mitt would like to end. So putting aside your personal feelings on abortion, how is he 'there for women'?
He isn't. He's there for people of a similar christian morality and wants to push that on everyone. If he was there for women, he'd empower them by supporting the continued right to abortion so that individuals could make their own minds up.
Thank you, d-usa and Howard, for getting this back on track. I was taking off my tennis shoe...
I deleted a couple of off-topic posts as well.
Wait a minute. How come when Whembly posts something from some right-wing blog site, guys - including the one who started this thread - come down on him like a ton of bricks, but something from the DailyKos gets in without so much as a batted eye?
This interview's all over the place, I'm sure you could have found a non-editorialized version that just presented facts.
A) It's not an interview, it is an editorial.
B) I agree that it's a bit harsh. I disclaimered it as such, as opposed to presenting it as something it's not. While this isn't a lot better than some of the crap I've criticized whembly for linking to, he's repeatedly linked pure editorials in the middle of a discussion as if they were providing some sort of evidentiary support for a position, not just opinion. So they've just been thread-derailers and flamebait. While I can see how someone who objects to the tone of this one could see it as objectionable, it's meant as a conversation-starter about the difficulties the Romney campaign is experiencing, and the irony of Ann complaining about them while creating more of them.
C) From what I could see, the facts provided in this one and the articles it links to are actually facts, instead of lies. Like the data about the Romneys' stock holdings during that period when Ann claimed they were struggling and poor. Which (IIRC) is the first time that information has been presented on this forum.
I knew they weren't actually poor in college despite implying they were, but I hadn't seen the dollar figure of the stock portfolio previously. $377k, huh? That's barely even middle class.
Mannahnin wrote: Ann's said a bunch of things at this point (as shown in the links), some of which are clearly false or disingenuous, and some of which really come off as having a terrible attitude and sense of entitlement.
In some ways, I give it a pass. It's not like blue-bloods are a rare thing in the Oval Office.
The issue, of course, is that it makes the Romneys lack credibility when they try to claim empathy for the middle class, etc. That narrative was never going to work for them -- Mitt is a smidge awkward personally and has made far too much money. He needed to stay on message about being Mr. Fixit for the economy. He didn't, and importantly he hasn't done a good job of explaining *how* he'd be Mr. Fixit, which is the first natural question you'll receive if you run with that narrative. And that's why he's going to lose, barring some large unforeseen event.
In short, his campaign's done a poor job for him, and Mitt's done a poor job for himself. I still say Mitt is completely electable if a) his party would let him run as the moderate he is, and b) you give him a campaign team capable of playing up his strengths and downplaying his weaknesses.
After elections are decided, we act as though their results were inevitable. But that's not how it works. Give Kerry a better campaign and a quick, decisive rebuttal to the Swift Boat nonsense and he absolutely could have been POTUS. Teach Gore not to be so awkward/aggressive/whatever in debates and he would have been POTUS. Give McCain a more moderate party (see a theme here?) and a real veep, and he might have made things interesting *even with* the political winds of the time and the phenomenon that Obama became.
I mean, Obama is as vulnerable as candidates get, and he's about to score a solid victory in November. There are real reasons for that. It's a very similar situation to 2004, just with the parties reversed.
I wouldn't exactly count Mitt out yet. He is, after all, a moderate, and no matter how much we like to suggest that his base is forcing him to the right, his base also chose him as the nominee. There are a lot more moderates in the Republican party than there are extremists, it's just that extremists are vocal.
The polls are tied, nationally, but they're also, as near as I (and others) can tell, massively oversampling Democrats; the models that show Obama with the tie or a slight edge appear to be based on even better turnout than 2008, which is extraordinarily unlikely to occur.
My biggest issue with the Romney campaign is that they're doing a horrible job of countering the meme that "he's just a rich white guy who doesn't understand struggling people".
...
Fry said, "From the personal side, after government, in 2008, I had a massive (noncancerous) brain tumor and nearly died. I can tell you one of the first phone calls I got was from Governor Romney."
"I was a little medicated at the time and I was telling him, it just wasn't fair. In his very reassuring voice, he said, 'Whatever I can do to help, I will be there for you,' " she said.
Lindstrom, who had young children when she served with Romney, said the governor told her: "Family comes first."
"To have a boss say, 'We'll have mistakes but they'll be our mistakes,' was very empowering," she said.
Herzfelder said: "I see this man up there that I know has this great strength, this great warmth. His actions really speak to the kind of man he is."
Gillespie recalled how Romney called her every night, for 10 straight nights, when her father was in a coma after heart surgery.
And she told one more story. The day she moved to Massachusetts, the moving company didn't get all her furniture inside the house. The governor called and asked her how things were going. She said furniture was still on the driveway.
"I'll get the boys," Romney told her.
At 9 p.m., Romney and his sons moved the furniture into the house.
Dude... it's these stories that makes me wanna vote for him...
6 Nov needs so get here. I feel bad for you guys and girls in th swing state with the ad bombardments...just a little bad....stll stocking food and ammo..my shipment of sandbags are in...whoever wins we be on a downhill slide to OMG GOVERNAGGEDONN!!! I say twenty trilllion in debt by 2014.
Jihadin wrote: 6 Nov needs so get here. I feel bad for you guys and girls in th swing state with the ad bombardments...just a little bad....stll stocking food and ammo..my shipment of sandbags are in...whoever wins we be on a downhill slide to OMG GOVERNAGGEDONN!!! I say twenty trilllion in debt by 2014.
Yeah, I live in northern VA. Obama's practically moved here. It's pretty annoying.
And since I'm also an undecided, I'm feeling like the prettiest girl at a very tedious ball.
d-usa wrote:So just looking at popular vote then. I was thinking about odds of winning, sorry.
I saw the odds of Romney winning the election posted as a 3-to-1 shot, but I forget where. Honestly, those odds didn't seem long enough personally. His entire campaign is in shambles now.
whembly wrote:Dang... didn't know I was... um... notorious.
My biggest issue with the Romney campaign is that they're doing a horrible job of countering the meme that "he's just a rich white guy who doesn't understand struggling people".
...
Fry said, "From the personal side, after government, in 2008, I had a massive (noncancerous) brain tumor and nearly died. I can tell you one of the first phone calls I got was from Governor Romney."
"I was a little medicated at the time and I was telling him, it just wasn't fair. In his very reassuring voice, he said, 'Whatever I can do to help, I will be there for you,' " she said.
Lindstrom, who had young children when she served with Romney, said the governor told her: "Family comes first."
"To have a boss say, 'We'll have mistakes but they'll be our mistakes,' was very empowering," she said.
Herzfelder said: "I see this man up there that I know has this great strength, this great warmth. His actions really speak to the kind of man he is."
Gillespie recalled how Romney called her every night, for 10 straight nights, when her father was in a coma after heart surgery.
And she told one more story. The day she moved to Massachusetts, the moving company didn't get all her furniture inside the house. The governor called and asked her how things were going. She said furniture was still on the driveway.
"I'll get the boys," Romney told her.
At 9 p.m., Romney and his sons moved the furniture into the house.
Dude... it's these stories that makes me wanna vote for him...
Dude... you're not his family or a close friend, and that means he would have you turned into dogfood if he didn't have a good reason not to.
And you can't call the rich-white-guy-who-doesn't-understand-struggling-people a meme unless you're also willing to call gravity a "meme". He has never once in his life not been given everything to him on a silver platter. Hell, his wife even described their "struggles" as the days when they had to live off of the dividends of their $300,000 stock portfolio. They truly have no idea, and I get the impression his wife has a "let them eat cake" attitude.
whembly wrote:Dang... didn't know I was... um... notorious.
My biggest issue with the Romney campaign is that they're doing a horrible job of countering the meme that "he's just a rich white guy who doesn't understand struggling people".
...
Fry said, "From the personal side, after government, in 2008, I had a massive (noncancerous) brain tumor and nearly died. I can tell you one of the first phone calls I got was from Governor Romney."
"I was a little medicated at the time and I was telling him, it just wasn't fair. In his very reassuring voice, he said, 'Whatever I can do to help, I will be there for you,' " she said.
Lindstrom, who had young children when she served with Romney, said the governor told her: "Family comes first."
"To have a boss say, 'We'll have mistakes but they'll be our mistakes,' was very empowering," she said.
Herzfelder said: "I see this man up there that I know has this great strength, this great warmth. His actions really speak to the kind of man he is."
Gillespie recalled how Romney called her every night, for 10 straight nights, when her father was in a coma after heart surgery.
And she told one more story. The day she moved to Massachusetts, the moving company didn't get all her furniture inside the house. The governor called and asked her how things were going. She said furniture was still on the driveway.
"I'll get the boys," Romney told her.
At 9 p.m., Romney and his sons moved the furniture into the house.
Dude... it's these stories that makes me wanna vote for him...
Dude... you're not his family or a close friend,
Yeah... so?
and that means he would have you turned into dogfood if he didn't have a good reason not to.
Um...wat? Seriously? Step away from the bong dude... (no, wait... gimmie dat!)
So... I take it that you didn't like him participating in the business cannibalism market... eh?
And you can't call the rich-white-guy-who-doesn't-understand-struggling-people a meme unless you're also willing to call gravity a "meme". He has never once in his life not been given everything to him on a silver platter. Hell, his wife even described their "struggles" as the days when they had to live off of the dividends of their $300,000 stock portfolio. They truly have no idea, and I get the impression his wife has a "let them eat cake" attitude.
Methinks you just don't like rich people....
And yes, you're providing a perfect example of Romney's perception problem.
whembly wrote: Dang... didn't know I was... um... notorious.
My biggest issue with the Romney campaign is that they're doing a horrible job of countering the meme that "he's just a rich white guy who doesn't understand struggling people".
...
Fry said, "From the personal side, after government, in 2008, I had a massive (noncancerous) brain tumor and nearly died. I can tell you one of the first phone calls I got was from Governor Romney."
"I was a little medicated at the time and I was telling him, it just wasn't fair. In his very reassuring voice, he said, 'Whatever I can do to help, I will be there for you,' " she said.
Lindstrom, who had young children when she served with Romney, said the governor told her: "Family comes first."
"To have a boss say, 'We'll have mistakes but they'll be our mistakes,' was very empowering," she said.
Herzfelder said: "I see this man up there that I know has this great strength, this great warmth. His actions really speak to the kind of man he is."
Gillespie recalled how Romney called her every night, for 10 straight nights, when her father was in a coma after heart surgery.
And she told one more story. The day she moved to Massachusetts, the moving company didn't get all her furniture inside the house. The governor called and asked her how things were going. She said furniture was still on the driveway.
"I'll get the boys," Romney told her.
At 9 p.m., Romney and his sons moved the furniture into the house.
Dude... it's these stories that makes me wanna vote for him...
So what? Was it his Aide? Random Person? Family Member, Im not saying Romney is evil, Im sure most Decent people would do that.
My god, the man's children helped their mother move furniture? Certainly most children, and certainly not the America hating Obama girls, would ever help their parents with anything, as is the liberal way. Certainly now that I know their five children help move furniture, I can see why he is specially suited to be POTUS.
whembly wrote: Dang... didn't know I was... um... notorious.
My biggest issue with the Romney campaign is that they're doing a horrible job of countering the meme that "he's just a rich white guy who doesn't understand struggling people".
...
Fry said, "From the personal side, after government, in 2008, I had a massive (noncancerous) brain tumor and nearly died. I can tell you one of the first phone calls I got was from Governor Romney."
"I was a little medicated at the time and I was telling him, it just wasn't fair. In his very reassuring voice, he said, 'Whatever I can do to help, I will be there for you,' " she said.
Lindstrom, who had young children when she served with Romney, said the governor told her: "Family comes first."
"To have a boss say, 'We'll have mistakes but they'll be our mistakes,' was very empowering," she said.
Herzfelder said: "I see this man up there that I know has this great strength, this great warmth. His actions really speak to the kind of man he is."
Gillespie recalled how Romney called her every night, for 10 straight nights, when her father was in a coma after heart surgery.
And she told one more story. The day she moved to Massachusetts, the moving company didn't get all her furniture inside the house. The governor called and asked her how things were going. She said furniture was still on the driveway.
"I'll get the boys," Romney told her.
At 9 p.m., Romney and his sons moved the furniture into the house.
Dude... it's these stories that makes me wanna vote for him...
So what? Was it his Aide? Random Person? Family Member, Im not saying Romney is evil, Im sure most Decent people would do that.
Does it matter who? Really?
It's about optics and perception... here you have a super WEALTH family doing this (Son, drop whatever you doing and let's help this lady move her stuff back in the house).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: My god, the man's children helped their mother move furniture? Certainly most children, and certainly not the America hating Obama girls, would ever help their parents with anything, as is the liberal way. Certainly now that I know their five children help move furniture, I can see why he is specially suited to be POTUS.
Re-read that dude...
It wasn't their mom's (Ann's) furniture... it was one of their Dad's employee that they helped move...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm more surprised at a multimillionaire businessman using a removals company that wouldn't deliver the goods.
Ahtman wrote: My god, the man's children helped their mother move furniture? Certainly most children, and certainly not the America hating Obama girls, would ever help their parents with anything, as is the liberal way. Certainly now that I know their five children help move furniture, I can see why he is specially suited to be POTUS.
Am I detecting just a hint of sarcasm there? Must have my detector recalibrated. It's been giving off these weird signals recently. Signal-to-noise ratio is also getting worse, like there's more background sarcasm lately.
Jihadin wrote: Oh Heck...we have ONE of those vegans on here.....also am I suppose to "moved" by the candidates "sob" story?
Certainly you had much more sympathy for their plight when you only had enough servants to have only one of them go through boot camp for you while you practically wasted away on the beach in the Virgin Islands from the interest from your investments. Rough times for all, really.
In short, his campaign's done a poor job for him, and Mitt's done a poor job for himself. I still say Mitt is completely electable if a) his party would let him run as the moderate he is, and b) you give him a campaign team capable of playing up his strengths and downplaying his weaknesses.
Speaking from my personal experience with political consultants that lean either way:
They tend to believe the narrative put forward by either party, and further believe that other people believe it. They will dismiss neutral information if it does not agree with their preferred narrative, and advise their client as though such information does not exist. I'll give a liberal example so that its clear I'm not picking on Republicans or conservatives. I've seen well paid professionals claim that the percentage of people who claim to be Pro-Life is much lower than it really is because they don't understand what it means to be Pro-Life. This is a bad argument because, while it may be true that they don't understand the term as an analyst does, the term still has obvious resonance and, therefore, political significance.
As I implied this happens in firms dedicated to both parties, but for whatever reason it seems more pronounced in those dedicated to Republicans.
Seaward wrote: I wouldn't exactly count Mitt out yet. He is, after all, a moderate, and no matter how much we like to suggest that his base is forcing him to the right, his base also chose him as the nominee. There are a lot more moderates in the Republican party than there are extremists, it's just that extremists are vocal.
The polls are tied, nationally, but they're also, as near as I (and others) can tell, massively oversampling Democrats; the models that show Obama with the tie or a slight edge appear to be based on even better turnout than 2008, which is extraordinarily unlikely to occur.
The polls are tied, nationally, but they're also, as near as I (and others) can tell, massively oversampling Democrats; the models that show Obama with the tie or a slight edge appear to be based on even better turnout than 2008, which is extraordinarily unlikely to occur.
The polls are tied, nationally, but they're also, as near as I (and others) can tell, massively oversampling Democrats; the models that show Obama with the tie or a slight edge appear to be based on even better turnout than 2008, which is extraordinarily unlikely to occur.
How can you tell they're oversampling Democrats?
Look at the D/R/I splits...
Then look for that splits in the 2008/2010 splits and you'll see that they'll either oversample (D) and/or women (who traditional breaks for (D)).
whembly wrote: Methinks you just don't like rich people....
And yes, you're providing a perfect example of Romney's perception problem.
To you, he's "Scroge on Steriods".
Methinks I don't really care about how much money someone has in the bank. I judge people based on their actions and on their views. And in all honesty, I really cannot find anything redeeming about Romney, nor his wife. In his case, it's not just that I dislike his platform, but from what I have come to understand of him (granted, there is the bias of what is presented to me during a campaign season) I dislike him on a personal level. And it has nothing to do with his wealth, other than the fact that he has the viewpoint of a millionaire and is bankrupt of empathy, yet claims that he speaks for the poor.
To me, he's not "Scrooge on Steroids"; he's just a living avatar of hypocrisy and old-money-entitlement.
EDIT: I don't actually like Obama either, but he is the lesser of who evils because he at least seems to have some modicum of social conscience. Such is the drawback of a two-party system.
Easy Frazz....calm down....no don't call the weiner posse...its 2012 not 1850's...lynching people over the cottonwood branch might be bad juju...yes yes I see the silver badge that say Sheriff but its plastic...Your not Apaio...
In short, his campaign's done a poor job for him, and Mitt's done a poor job for himself. I still say Mitt is completely electable if a) his party would let him run as the moderate he is, and b) you give him a campaign team capable of playing up his strengths and downplaying his weaknesses.
Speaking from my personal experience with political consultants that lean either way:
They tend to believe the narrative put forward by either party, and further believe that other people believe it. They will dismiss neutral information if it does not agree with their preferred narrative, and advise their client as though such information does not exist. I'll give a liberal example so that its clear I'm not picking on Republicans or conservatives. I've seen well paid professionals claim that the percentage of people who claim to be Pro-Life is much lower than it really is because they don't understand what it means to be Pro-Life. This is a bad argument because, while it may be true that they don't understand the term as an analyst does, the term still has obvious resonance and, therefore, political significance.
As I implied this happens in firms dedicated to both parties, but for whatever reason it seems more pronounced in those dedicated to Republicans.
Working in advertising, it's interesting to me that bias would be so prominent at the consultant level. But then I guess with politics you get morality, religion, etc. traveling in the same cart. There are no diet soda true believers.
whembly wrote:
Methinks you just don't like rich people....
And yes, you're providing a perfect example of Romney's perception problem.
To you, he's "Scroge on Steriods".
Methinks I don't really care about how much money someone has in the bank. I judge people based on their actions and on their views. And in all honesty, I really cannot find anything redeeming about Romney, nor his wife. In his case, it's not just that I dislike his platform, but from what I have come to understand of him (granted, there is the bias of what is presented to me during a campaign season) I dislike him on a personal level. And it has nothing to do with his wealth, other than the fact that he has the viewpoint of a millionaire and is bankrupt of empathy, yet claims that he speaks for the poor.
To me, he's not "Scrooge on Steroids"; he's just a living avatar of hypocrisy and old-money-entitlement.
EDIT: I don't actually like Obama either, but he is the lesser of who evils because he at least seems to have some modicum of social conscience. Such is the drawback of a two-party system.
Fair enough dude... Romney have things you don't like... Obama have things I don't like...
At least we're not fighting wars over this... (unless... you'd like a friendly 40k game... eh? GREAT! I'll bring the booze, you bring the babes! )
Oh... and I completely agree that a two-party system sucks.
gorgon wrote: The issue, of course, is that it makes the Romneys lack credibility when they try to claim empathy for the middle class, etc. That narrative was never going to work for them -- Mitt is a smidge awkward personally and has made far too much money. He needed to stay on message about being Mr. Fixit for the economy. He didn't, and importantly he hasn't done a good job of explaining *how* he'd be Mr. Fixit, which is the first natural question you'll receive if you run with that narrative. And that's why he's going to lose, barring some large unforeseen event.
I think that's the problem - that he's been unable to articulate how he might fix it.
I think 'vote out that other guy because the economy sucks' is a pretty solid campaign strategy. It's a reliable, dependable emotional reaction that we've seen used to overthrow Chinese emperors thousands of years ago. The problem is that it's an emotional response, and one that's got no real basis in logic because there simply isn't a plan out there available to any president that will turn the economy around.
If it's played smart then it can form the background for a series of claims about how the incumbent needs to be booted out, but if it's played poorly then all it does is draw attention to how you also lack a plan for recovery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I wouldn't exactly count Mitt out yet. He is, after all, a moderate,
That's one of the funnier parts of this campaign. You have two moderates running for president, and two party bases desperately pretending the other side's candidate is a radical.
The polls are tied, nationally, but they're also, as near as I (and others) can tell, massively oversampling Democrats; the models that show Obama with the tie or a slight edge appear to be based on even better turnout than 2008, which is extraordinarily unlikely to occur.
The polls aren't tied. Obama's lead is slight, but it's major because the polls are almost unchanging. It seems everyone had their minds made up months ago on this one.
The claim you make there about using turnout models better than 2008 is unlike anything I've seen. The best results on turnout always come from questionaires that are built in to the survey (did you vote in the last election?, do you have a strong conviction towards a candidate?, that kind of stuff). And those surveys are showing Obama is holding a modest lead, but one Romney has made no ground on throughout the election.
We're at the point where it has to be said 'something will have to happen for Romney to win this election'. It may be something Obama does, something Romney does, or some outside factor, but there will have to be something. If thing drift until election day then Romney will lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Rasmussen has them even, Gallup has Romney back by two - within the margin.
Rasmussen used the 2010 turn out figures. When that only gives tied results... that's a bad sign for Romney.
That guy is taking month by month registration figures, and claims they're excellent because they synched up with the results of 2010 (everything lines up with the 2010 election - that's how it works in landslides) and then trying to use that rather than actual polling data.
I mean, there's something to be said for looking at alternate data, but come on.
Oh, you mean in terms of response error. Yeah, that's unavoidable and actually becomes a pretty big problem in a climate where the polling agencies themselves are politicized.
I assumed Seaward was talking about an actual, and intentional, distortion due to the method by which respondents are chosen.
I stopped reading when he confused partisan identification with registration.
He does have a point about sampling though. However his argument would be stronger if her looked at the response bias in polls taken around the elections he's using as comparisons. The whole party identification thing is just a sideshow.
Working in advertising, it's interesting to me that bias would be so prominent at the consultant level. But then I guess with politics you get morality, religion, etc. traveling in the same cart. There are no diet soda true believers.
Part of it is just professional necessity. Most consultants don't actually interact with the candidate, they interact with the guy that interacts with the candidate. So, because they want their data to be seen by the candidate (and thereby improve their chances of obtaining future contracts), they present data that is likely to make it past the candidate's handlers to the candidate himself. This leads individual consultancies to hire ideologically desirable employees so they don't have to let low level people in on the game being played.
I remember when I was finishing up my doctorate I started looking for jobs. I applied to a firm in DC with a conservative reputation, not my preference but I figured a job in the field is a job in the field (that's when I was naive). I get a phone interview, do well enough to be flown out for a face to face interview, and we're in there for about 15 minutes when one of the managing partners asks me "Where are you from?" I told the truth and said "Chicago." he sort of chuckled, got up and walked out and the interview ended a couple minutes later.
I didn't get that job. And later figured out that not only is where you grew up important in this industry, but that being employed by a firm that favors one side basically means being blacklisted by firms that favor the other.
The claim you make there about using turnout models better than 2008 is unlike anything I've seen. The best results on turnout always come from questionaires that are built in to the survey (did you vote in the last election?, do you have a strong conviction towards a candidate?, that kind of stuff). And those surveys are showing Obama is holding a modest lead, but one Romney has made no ground on throughout the election.
Moreover, determining what a person actually did in the past is extremely difficult, particularly regarding voting, as the people who tend to respond to surveys also tend to vote at a higher rate than the general population. Turnout projection, more than just about anything in political analysis, is as much black magic as it is statistical analysis and this is a discipline that wears a pointy hat and a blue coat.
)
