Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

I'm just noting thats why the WH instantly disavowed any knowledge.

Grakmar wrote: People can understand, sympathize, and want to correct the plight of others without having to go through it themselves.

Some people can. Some people can't.

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).

AustonT wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

AustonT wrote:

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.

Phanatik wrote:

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.

Best,

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.

Government 1 - People 0

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.

Cheers!

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.

@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".

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.