Because it's all about the women. Everything is all about women.
ADDED: Dialogue at Meadhouse:
MEADE: Why Rosengate? What's the scandal?As we'd talked about earlier: The Democrats don't really believe anything. They're just working on various voting blocs. They started this "war on women" theme, but it was a means to an end. Women were out there, so numerous, so richly exploitable. The campaign made its move. And then... the slip.
ALTHOUSE: The scandal is: They let the mask slip. They let it show.
Posts
209 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 209 of 209Rosen is also now being brought out by media looking into her background as Sandra Fluke's principal "handler" via the firm she co-manages along with former Whte House head of communications Anita Dunn..
Interestingly, her 36 visits to the White House do not include any visits she may have made in 2012. Records for that are still unavailable.
Ann said:
"The scandal is: They let the mask slip. They let it show."
Why would the administration want to alienate women who stay home to raise their children?
Attacking Ann Romney was not a wise move since she is a sympathetic character. Anybody who has raised kids knows that staying home and taking care of kids (especially 5 kids) is harder work than going to most salaried jobs.
Having said that, it does not seem likely that this particular dem misstep is a major turning point in the campaign.
The dems must really be worried that Ann Romney is going to be a very effective campaigner. Sooner or later the dems will figure out that attacking Ann is counter productive because it just focuses more attention on her and what she is saying.
Having said that, it does not seem likely that this particular dem misstep is a major turning point in the campaign.
I would have thought the same. And then the N.O.W. president got involved...
Poor Obama! See what he gets when he trusts an underpaid female to get out his message??
Instead of cutting corners, he should have just paid full-price and had a male staffer do the job. You get what you pay for!
Thanks for the effort Les, sorry blogger made it so much trouble for you.
At least here, if you don't cite to your work, it will be assumed that you made it up.
So I can post something on the Internet someplace and then cite it someplace else and it becomes "true"? How do you know the cite wasn't itself "made up"?
If I say something like "according to the US Census bureau, the number of stay at home mothers increased in 2010 over 2000" I would expect someone who was interested to be able to find the information the same way I did: search engine. And that is even a better way because they might come up with a completely different source than I did and it might point out something wrong with the data I found.
I find people who while "cite" all the time are simply attempting to devalue the information. They can't directly find or can't be bothered with finding anything wrong with the actual information so they find something else to use to devalue the message. It is a way to criticize the messenger if you can't argue the message.
I don't usually get a lol moment from Insta, but this one was pretty damned good.
Takeaway: “Ms. Rosen’s remarks were criticized as being snide; the real problem is that they were stupid.” Making the rubble bounce . . .
lol
"So I can post something on the Internet someplace and then cite it someplace else and it becomes "true"? How do you know the cite wasn't itself "made up"?"
-- By looking at the cite and using critical thinking. I like sources because it lets me evaluate them. A link to, say, an AP article gets different weight than, say, my blog, which gets even less weight than say, a comment on a blog.
Not giving people links makes them suspicious. If I Google a claim, how long should I search before I give up? Why make me work to prove your claim? Better to show your work, when possible.
Post a Comment