You know, I've been speaking about energy policy I think pretty consistently throughout all of my stump speech.... But the reality is that as I've gone across the country in the last several weeks in particular, I'm seeing more and more people, particularly women for instance, that say to me, you know, it's hard getting kids to school and to soccer practice when you don't know if you can afford to fill up the car. I spoke with a teacher in St. Louis who was out of work and she's staying on unemployment because she said in part, the cost of getting to and from work at a temporary teaching assignment was just so expensive, given gasoline. She couldn't afford to go back to work.Women. Kids. Soccer. Teachers. He wants you women to know: He cares.
March 18, 2012
Hey, Romney, are you in a war against women?
On Fox News Sunday today, Mitt Romney was asked why he'd started talking about energy, why he hadn't talked about energy in various relatively recent speeches. We laughed at the way he phrased his answer, because it seemed like he was looking for places to signal that he was not at war against women.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
Sometimes I want to believe Romney, but I can't make the leap.
He wants you women to know: He cares.
And “over the thousand years that follow [Jesus' return] the millennium, [Jesus] will reign from two places, the law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem,” and then you women can really live it up!
All perfectly logical. He's the *perfect* candidate to run the country - if you can't get Pat Robertson.
Mitt Romney - the ObamaCare of the 2012 election:
You've got to elect him to see what he's all about,...
Well, I don't blame him for making rhetorical moves (even if they seem clumsy) to negate the Democrats' false narrative.
Hey - Missouri is "the show me state."
I wish others were as discerning BEFORE they elect somebody,...
Hey Crack, why don't you pick some choice passages from the Catholic Bible to ridicule.
I'm sure MoDo would laugh it up with you over Rick Santorum's religion too.
The way it looks lately, the GOP's kingdom is already being ruled by the prophet from Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
yashu,
Well, I don't blame him for making rhetorical moves (even if they seem clumsy) to negate the Democrats' false narrative.
You're great. Let Bush or Palin say something clumsily, they're a pair of stupid idiots.
Let Romney do it, and what he's trying to say is perfectly understandable.
Fen used the "what he meant" line the other day with a Romney staffer.
Oh man, this is going to be waaay better than the 2008 election because, this time, it's going to be CLASHING DELUSIONS on display.
A NewAger vs. a Mormon - as a cult-watcher, it doesn't get any better than this.
But - as a patriot - it doesn't get any sadder.
Come on, you guys, cheer me up:
Somebody start screaming about how Romney's going to pay for your gas and mortgage,...
Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts must be a Romney supporter.
He cracked (no relation) a joke about Santorum now having Secret Service protection, " i hear that it's the first time he has ever used protection."
yashu,
Hey Crack, why don't you pick some choice passages from the Catholic Bible to ridicule.
I'm sure MoDo would laugh it up with you over Rick Santorum's religion too.
You really don't read my blog, do you?
You're about as late as late can be.
Sorry, yashu, but unlike the way you're trying to portray me, I don't play favorites.
Why you do, is the question.
I listen to Rick Santorum as closely as Romney. As far as I know, Santorum hasn't said anything outside the boundaries of normal religious devotion, nor is he deliberately hiding anything.
Hiding something - alone - should be enough for you to question Romney's fitness for office, but no - you're a willingly blind fool/tool - following where you should be skeptical.
This is the time for vetting - that's your job as a citizen - not to protect anyone.
You are behaving like a cultist.
Snap out of it and do your duty.
if Romney is the man you think he is, let him prove it - I'll accept it - just as I have with Santorum:
Vet him.
Hey, that was a pretty smooth pivot.
Often he's more awkward.
Say what you will about Willard...
Mitt's a pretty good learner.
You're great. Let Bush or Palin say something clumsily, they're a pair of stupid idiots.
Huh? You must have me confused with someone else. I've liked and like both Bush and Palin quite a a lot (Palin less so of late, but that has nothing to do with any clumsiness of expression-- I actually think she's a very skilled rhetor, in her own way).
In any case, I don't recall ever criticizing either one of them for clumsy turns of phrase-- and have probably defended one or both of them more than once.
It just keeps coming and coming, doesn't it?
At what point can you no longer look at yourself in the mirror, without feeling nauseous, the morning after having slept with Romney? At what point must you say, "I can't do this anymore"?
Crack, I know you adduced MoDo to support your case against Romney (you did it in earlier posts). That's what I was reacting to. To me, she's not a particularly credible ally to have on the topic of Republican politicians' religion.
yashu,
You must have me confused with someone else.
Did I say YOU did it? Or was I talking about a prevailing phenomena that even you can recognize?
A typical dodge - accuse me of making a statement about you (straw man) to ignore what I DID say about you, specifically.
Don't play with me, yashu - give me direct answers - not your assumptions, beliefs, or other rhetorical get-out-of-jail ploys.
You accused me of treating Santorum's Catholicism differently. I gave you a link where I posted a direct critique of it.
I'm treating you like an adult.
Try acting like one.
yashu,
Crack, I know you adduced MoDo to support your case against Romney (you did it in earlier posts). That's what I was reacting to. To me, she's not a particularly credible ally to have on the topic of Republican politicians' religion.
Now you're shooting the messenger - again, a dodge.
I know who Maureen Dowd is, but she's not the point - Romney and Mormonism are.
Quit playing games. It makes you dishonest.
traditionalguy said...
Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts must be a Romney supporter.
Romney's staff members were key in Scott Brown's winning campaign against "Marsha" Coakley in 2010, and his senatorial staff thereafter.
In the small world of Republican Massachusetts politics, the links between the two campaigns are especially close. Gail Gitcho, Romney’s communications director, once served that role for Brown. Colin Reed, Brown’s chief spokesman, used to work for Romney.
Robert Maginn, chairman of the state Republican Party, who is responsible for helping to get Brown reelected and boosting Romney’s chances if he becomes the party’s presidential nominee, is a Romney ally and a former board member at Bain Capital, which Romney founded.
And both campaigns employ strategist Eric Fehrnstrom to craft essentially opposite messages for the candidates — helping Romney argue that he is a reliable conservative and Brown present himself as an independent centrist.
Notice the negative spin from the Wapo that this is a problem for Brown. While I think the Democrats will try to drive a wedge, Romney himself will be tacking toward the center eventually as a matter of course.
Scott Brown’s Mitt Romney problem
But now, as the two men anticipate tough general-election battles in the fall, their paths are beginning to diverge. Brown, who will face a difficult reelection fight, probably against Harvard professor and former Obama administration official Elizabeth Warren, is working hard to define himself as a “Massachusetts moderate,” hoping to build support among Democrats in the deeply blue state.
Romney, meanwhile, has been working equally hard to escape that label, which his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination have used as a slur against him during the primary campaign.
The likely result is that Brown will be forced into a delicate dance in the coming months to distance himself from a political mentor and his state’s other most prominent Republican politician. It is a twist of irony unique to Massachusetts but one that could hold broad significance to the marquee race.
Recent polls show Brown leading Warren, who has drawn national support because of her outspoken warnings about the excesses of Wall Street. But the November contest is widely considered a tossup, and the electoral math is difficult for Brown.
Bender, are you referring to me?
So expressing my opinion regarding the primary candidates (among whom I currently prefer one over the others, who's not my first choice)-- arguing pro and con no more passionately (and IMO with considerably less passion) than you express yourself re Romney and Santorum-- is equivalent to... what.
So you're calling me a whore, is that it?
Your pretty low insult of me for merely stating my opinion is evidence enough of who's more "passionate" arguing for and against primary candidates here.
I could say something just as distasteful-- make a nasty joke-- about your support of Santorum, but I won't. I don't feel the need to insult you for preferring a different candidate than I do.
Oh give it a rest yashu.
I didn't call you a whore.
Quit your damn knee-jerk lashing out.
To suggest that Romney's supporters have been in bed with him is hardly some way out of bounds anti-woman attack.
Grow up.
Besides, not everything is about you.
I think people know by now that I tend to speak rather bluntly and plainly.
When I call you a whore, you'll know it. You won't need to bend over backwards and twist yourself in knots to make that inference.
Crack, I may be dodging, but honestly I just think it would be futile to pursue an argument with you over Romney's Mormonism. To me, it's just not a significant factor. It's just not relevant to my reasons for preferring Romney over Santorum for POTUS.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the evils of Mormonism and on whether or not it's a cult. I just don't think the fact that a candidate is a Mormon automatically disqualifies them from high office, and it appears that for you it does. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other otherwise.
My point was merely that MoDo (and her ridiculing of Mormon beliefs) is not the most compelling witness for your case.
yashu,
That attack on bender is pretty juvenile.
Let me ask you something:
What is it about Romney that has made you so committed to him already? He hasn't said or done anything spectacular, so what's the draw?
is it because you want to get rid of Obama? Well so do I, but, as I've told you, ANYONE can do that - he can't win.
Look, I wanted to see the first black president, but I didn't vote for Obama. Why? Because he was THE WRONG GUY.
And I see many of the exact same traits surrounding Romney - the desire to hide his true self from us, the willingness to let others cover for him, calling others "bigots" just as Obama called others "racists," bad associations to religious and "spiritual" people and groups, and so on.
I swear to you, I'm not out to get him, but want him to come clean with us. That's our job as citizens - to smoke him out before we put him in power. if he sails through, great. If not, we dodged a bullet.
I started out backing Newt Gingrich. I switched to Santorum as a default candidate. Romney's dishonesty has always made him unelectable to me.
My point is, these are politicians, and I feel no serious connection to any of them. I might prefer one over the other, but I think if you're not skeptical of politicians - ALL OF THEM - you're a fool.
Find out what you can about Romney. I told you, I'm watching Santorum, too. Digging up dirt on Santorum is not how you discover anything about Romney. Watch them both.
Are we clear?
OK, so you didn't imply that I'm Romney's whore, just his booty call. (I presume you didn't mean Althouse with your jibe, since this post seems more a criticism-- if a mild and bemused one-- than a defense of his pandering to women.)
I'm not doing a Fluke. I just think your insult was uncalled for. Not because you're offending me as a woman or implying I'm a slut (obviously you used a metaphor, applicable to a man or a woman), but because you're contemptuously dismissing me as a rational interlocutor, someone who may have valid reasons-- even if they're not *your* reasons-- for preferring a different candidate than you.
No, I don't feel nauseous and unable to look myself in the mirror for preferring a different candidate than you.
That last comment addressed to Bender.
yashu,
Bender wasn't talking about you.
Jesus, get a grip.
I'll try again.
How many times does Romney have to prove himself a pandering weasel before those who jumped on his bandwagon can no longer stomach it and seek to regain their self-respect?
There is a reason that those opposed to Romney are so adamantely against him. Because he is not merely unproven, rather, he has proven himself to be untrustworthy, such that those who do have principles cannot -- CANNOT -- in all good conscience ever vote for him.
If I may be so bold as to speak for him -- if, for example, me or Crack were to vote for him in November -- no, neither one of us could look ourselves in the mirror the next morning. We would be disgusted with ourselves.
In the past, I have "sucked it up" and "held my nose" and voted for some candidate I did not care for. No more. I've done my part.
Crack, my preference for Romney is relative: I prefer him over Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul for POTUS. By a lot. But he wasn't my first choice when the primaries began (Pawlenty and then Perry was, at least until the lefty "vulture capitalism" schtick).
Probably the single biggest reason I prefer Romney for POTUS at the present time-- given the current fiscal straits our country finds itself in-- is his extensive private sector experience. And especially the specific things he specialized in at Bain: those are exactly the skills, the priorities, the analytic and diagnostic perspective, the businessman's ruthlessness-- always keeping an eye on the bottom line, cutting dead wood and even (gasp!) firing people-- we need now.
Second, his extensive executive experience, running large organizations and a state. We've witnessed what it's like to have an incompetent without any private sector or executive experience at the helm, doing the most difficult job in the world. Give me boring ultracompetence, please.
The other candidates lack both of those factors. And those factors are probably the first 2 I would look for in any candidate for POTUS.
It seems to me there are basically three things fueling anti-Romney sentiment. For a few, it's essentially religion. For a somewhat larger group, it's Romneycare. And for what may be the biggest group, it's post-McCain Stress Syndrome -- a hangover from the 2008 primaries.
I think yashu is correct in saying that nobody is going to change anyone's mind on the religion angle, so I'll just resign myself to Crack raging on about it and continue skipping his posts. The Romneycare issue is legitimate, in that it's absence would definitely make Romney a better candidate. But the post-McCain thing is the most intriguing to me, and maybe the most worthy of examination.
I have the same bad taste in my mouth from four years ago, so I understand how someone could feel strongly against Romney if he reminds them of that taste. But I don't remember exactly what issues were used to prop up McCain. Why and how did he become the candidate? Are there legitimate comparisons between how we ended up with McCain four years ago and what's going on now? That's an honest question -- I can't say I recall well enough to say.
Bender,
For me, politics is always about the lesser evil. As Churchill said of democracy. And politics is the art of the possible-- not of the ideal.
I don't expect ever in my lifetime to vote for a POTUS whom I don't have to do some nose-holding for, who sends tingles up my legs. Might happen, but I won't hold my breath.
And I don't know that I would want that to happen. (Though Paul Ryan might be close to tingleworthy: I'd love to vote for him someday.) To vote holding your nose doesn't mean you're a rube-- on the contrary, it means you're *not* a rube. That you're voting with your eyes open, making a pragmatic calculation in an imperfect world.
To vote without holding your nose, with tingles going up your legs, is to be like an Obama voter. That's for the Chris Matthews of this world. Those are the rubes; those are the ones who have unrealistic expectations and fall for false promises, and whose hopes are dashed. Of course Romney is not "the One" (like Obama was for the Dems who voted for him), but that's just it, I don't expect him to be. That's part of what makes us conservatives, I think.
For me, Romney would be a vast vast VAST improvement over Obama. I *will* feel tingles on election day, because I'll be voting against *Obama*. And those will be tingles enough for me. No need to hold my nose, because, for all of Romney's flaws, if Romney beats Obama-- I'll be able to breathe more easy than I have in 4 long years.
Anyway, good night all.
egad ! ANOTHER comment thread hijacked by the fellow on crack who despises mormons (and everybody else)?? jeezus..was his mother frightened by a mormon or something ? i'd hate for our hostess to start censoring posts, but we could all use a rest from this ranting, no ? as my captcha so aptly put it: resofacc fockple!!
I always imagine the candidate meeting the the consultants whose job it is to pore over the polling data and make recommendations.
"Governor, you've slipped two points with suburban mothers with children. If you could say a few things to shore up that group, it'd be just great." I imagine the word "great" being said for three seconds through a fake smile.
Similarly, when Santorum made his comments about how going to college wasn't for everyone and universities were liberal indoctrination mills, anyway, I imagined a similar conversation.
"Senator, you're already up five points versus Romney among the 'did not attend college' crowd. If you could push that number to seven, I think we could take Romney in Michigan. Just say something to let those folks know you're on your side. You don't look down on them, there are problems with college - something like that."
Oh, c'mon, Ann, that was as nice a little segue as you'll find and it did what everybody thinks he needs to do - steer every question back toward the economy.
I know - cruel neutrality.
And I thought 'slut' was a legal term for people who can't be raped.
Soccer moms in St. Louis are straight out of the 96 Presidential campaign - in fact, Time Mag's (or maybe it was Newsweek's) soccer mom story featured an in-depth story on a StL, struggling soccer ma.
Mitt Romney, once again displaying the vision and finger-on-the-pulse-of-the-nation moxy that made him the front-walker for the GOP nomination...
Crack: Fen used the "what he meant" line the other day with a Romney staffer.
Because you were distoring it. You claimed Romney had ordered that the Religious Bigot tag be applied to anyone who has legitimate questions about Romney's faith.
What they said was anyone who "takes a shot" a Romney's religion.
Taking a shot at someone != asking legitimate questions.
Of course, your own blog is chock full of religious bigotry. So I can understand why the scarlet letter concerns you.
And I don't even like Romney. But hey, don't let that stop you from taking cheap shots at people on your own side.
BTW, I hand intended to post about Romney pandering to women.
Insetead, you've got me defending his faith.
Nice job.
It just keeps coming and coming, doesn't it?
At what point can you no longer look at yourself in the mirror, without feeling nauseous, the morning after having slept with Romney? At what point must you say, "I can't do this anymore"?
Yea, that goes away everytime I see Obama on the ballot next to Mitt or any other GOP candidate.
I held my nose for GHWB, W in 2004 and McCain in 2008. I can hold my nose for Romney no problem.
Can you?
One of the big fundamental points of opposition to Romney religion is from "Christians" who prefer their Bible be edited by Anglicans, Baptists and the other 31 flavors of the reformists of 19th Century Europe and Britain, instead of some other dudes born contemporarily in the USA.
If you aren't translating the Bible from Aramaic or Greek, shut up already about "cults" or impurities in worshipping God.
Claims that Mormonisn is a "cult" ignored their own schisms and persecutions trying to worship freely while disagreeing with Church Authority. The critics are just as cultish in their exclusion criteria and preferences in their OWN Bible.
Who is worshipping God more sincerely? The Mormon, who takes care of his neighbors, or the Black Southern Baptist taking walking around money to go buy votes for Democrats during election years, while clamoring for more government handouts?
ALL the candidates are panderers. They just pander in different ways.
A strong case could be made that Mormonism has transcendentalist underpinnings.
One of the big fundamental points of opposition to Romney religion is from "Christians" who prefer their Bible be edited by Anglicans, Baptists and the other 31 flavors of the reformists of 19th Century Europe and Britain, instead of some other dudes born contemporarily in the USA.
Agreed, except that Crack is a self-proclaimed atheist.
The irony is that you know how this will end - Rev Crack leading a flock of acolytes to the punch bowl.
I know it looks like pandering to women, but Romney brings up a very good point that I haven't seen made -- there are 3 forces at work that are conspiring to put one hell of a lot of people into a vise right now:
a) High unemployment and limited job prospects make it necessary for those employed to stay that their current position.
b) High gas prices make it very expensive for commuters to drive 35 miles to work and 35 miles back every day.
c) Horrible housing market makes it impossible for them to sell their house and move closer to their job.
I think Obama has chosen a very bad time to force us all to be more "green" by limiting drilling and refining. He's put tens of millions of Americans' nuts in a vise, and I hope he pays a price in November.
What yashu wrote goes double for me as well except that I was never a big Rick Perry fan. I’m a bit less inclined to support Republicans who come from deep Red States and they seem to have a lot of the same problems as Democrats who come from deep Blue States – when you come from a political culture where you’re used to being in the majority, I think it may make it harder to adapt to situations when you’re not in power. Also some of the things that play well in your State (like talking about succession) may not play so well in States you need compete harder in to win.
Am I the only person who doesn’t see anything wrong with Romney’s comments? If I were running for President at a time when we’re looking at five dollar a gallon gasoline and eight percent unemployment, I’d much rather be focusing on this than birth control.
If anything it shows that he’s the adult in the room focused on the economy while Santorum and Obama are arguing about social issues.
If anything it shows that he’s the adult in the room
Yes, condescension is such a grown-up thing.
Too bad for Romney that, our being mere children, we are therefore too young to vote for him.
Thorley... I agree. I actually feel for once (as a single mom, working mom, soccer mom). That I have been addressed, because damn if it isn't getting hard to get me and the kid around with rising gas, groceries, utilities, etc.
I want to be addressed. As a woman, as a mother. I want someone to tell me that the pain I feel is real. Just being acknowledged doesn't feel condescending to me.
Post a Comment