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
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225And this is what's dangerous when they Left plays its "both sides do it" equivalence.
They will *pretend* conservatives do something evil simply to justify their need to do the same thing.
I have noticed this pattern too. It's one reason I've always been disturbed by e.g. the persistent lies about Bush "stealing the election" from Gore. Disturbed not just because they are lying about the past, but because of what this might portend-- what they might take this to justify doing-- in the future. (Or have already done, e.g. in 2008.)
Stealing an election is just following in Kennedy's hallowed footsteps, after all. Speaking of Chicago politics.
Marxist says: series of bills turning back the equal pay advancement
So much hyperbole. Should I even bother fact-checking you?
One comment from one women is not letting the mask slip as much as a series of bills turning back the equal pay advancement-- please get a sense of proportion here. Of course this is another example of "clever framing" by Althouse- or could it be called letting the mask slip on her views?
Let me challenge you to find studies showing a significant gender salary differential after taking into account years and hours worked, as well as danger involved and strength required.
As a Candadian I can vouch personally and anecdotely that health care is rationed in many ways here. Minimum age limits for hip and knee replacements, creep in less items being covered (eye care for example), cancer screening (you're too old, you'll die of something else first, this killed my dad). Luckily, the age limits for knees and hips are coming down due to better technology giving longer lasting replacements, ironically due to USA healthcare financed research.
Jane - "Also, I find it fascinating that women would trade free $10 birth control pills for a $300 utility bill and a $200 gasoline bill."
================
A trechent observation.
Might I add that women may also not be so thankful for elite Dems protecting them from the Hating Haters of the Republican Party, despite free birth control for wealthy law students..when the impact of 5 dollar gas and 5.50 diesel is manifested in grocery and retail prices???
Food prices are beginning to explode.
When women have weekly additional costs of 100 dollars for groceries and another 80 in gas costs - all the other spending (and retail jobs) will suffer on budget constraints.
By late summer, I predict significant job losses - mainly of women who are not in law school. All those restaurant workers, clothing shoppe owners, beauty salon people, etc are going to see a lot less business.
The "War on Women" will be "ruined!" by some very angry middle class and working class women that see their household budgets destroyed under Obama, their service sector jobs threatened or lost.
The Obamites cannot see women past the wealthy Elites Rosen and Ann Romney belong to, or the women they see as not having to sweat gas or food prices because they live in urban government paid housing and get free food with food stamps.
They are blind.
Not generally discussed, but I think part of the reason why Dems rushed to distance themselves from Hilary Rosen is her bio.
Rosen is a woman born to wealth and privilege, with a richer family than the one Ann Romney was born in.
Rosen is a longtime Democrat operative that advanced rapidly in DC insider jobs on her family clout, her LGBT backers, and connections in the media biz.
There is also the "bad optics" of a prominent lesbian assailing a 'heteronormative" stay at home Mom. Who Rosen thinks was just a breeder that never worked a day in her life - and failed to fulfill herself as a careerist.
With Rosen's background..or despite it..Rosen honestly thinks she speaks for the "typical woman", while Ann Romney is quite atypical and women should have nothing in common with her.
Married women lean Republican. Unmarried women lean heavily Democrat. The reasons are simple and obvious. Married women generally can count on support and protection from an adult male. Unmarried women generally can't. Therefore, they vote for more government support as a husband substitute. Ann Romney is the classic married woman who can rely on her husband. Hilary Rosen is the opposite.
The 'war on woman' strategy is all about turnout. Obama won't ever convince the majority of Ann Romneys to vote for him. Mitt Romney will never convince the Rosens to vote for him. The Rosens will either vote D or stay home. Obama needs them to vote D so they must be scared into showing up on election day by the threat that a nasty old white man will take away their safety net. It's a bonus if he can get some married women to stay home rather than turn out for the R.
This is late to the party, but...
This calls for a "SNL" skit: the Democrat elite are sitting around at the White House, discussing strategy: "We need to figure out how to sound like regular folks"...and then have whiz kids and Joe Biden all give their ideas such as, "we were only earning $300k a year, we couldn't afford the luxury of Michelle staying home" and so forth.
Rosen 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?
@Fen: third attempt to post this answer. They show up, then disappear.
The CANPD is a function of the legislature. As such Grothman sits on its board. It is a quasi-legislative body. If Grothman's vill were to succees, the "spotlight" could be used as a "factor" in hearings, with the weight of law behind it.
Grothman has emphasized that the bill is directed at young single mothers. Consult the record of his presentation to the Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services and Revenue.
Just because the bill is directed at a particular group, however, does not mean that it can't be directed at others similarly situated. Grothman makes no distinctions, and I believe he can't without a Constitutional problem.
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...
Fen: this is my fourth attempt to answer your question. For some reasons the posts keep disappearing.
The CANPB is a function of the legislature. As such, Grothman sits on its board. It is a quasi-legislative body. If Grothman's bill were to succeed, the "spotlight" could be used as a factor in hearings, with the weight of legislation behind it.
Grothman has emphasized that the bill is directed at yourng single mothers. Consult the record of his presentation to the Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services and Revenue.
Just because the bill is directed at a particular group, however, does not mean that it can't be applied to others similarly situated (single parents raising a child). Grothman makes no distinctions, and I believe that he can't without a Constitutional problem.
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.
sorry for the multiple posts, I can't find "newest" as the instructions say.
Post a Comment