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:
1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»Rosengate! Wish I'd'a thought'a that.
It's all about the women until/unless George Zimmerman is aquited of all charges.
Bah. It will be forgotten by next week just like civility nonsense was.
Has anyone asked why Jennifer Granholm has a program called "The War Room"?
Icepick - Dershowitz was on Chris Matthews tonight. He said the charge is bullshit and that it's just an unethical way of getting Zimmerman to plead out. He thinks GZ and his new lawyer are ready to do that.
Let me be Garage before Garage can get here and be Garage...
War on women!! That's just something the Republicans claim that the Democrats accuse them of! Show me more than 74 instances where Democrats have used that phrase!
This is how fundraising is done - carom off the other side's fox paws.
But this one was a doozy - World Class Dumb, as they say. Sure, pick a fight with a woman who's had cancer and is fighting MS. What can go wrong?
I love the line in the Politico (should have America's in front of it) piece, "Rosen is not an Obama adviser".
Suure.
She's just visited the White House, what, 35 times?
But this, on the heels of the revelation the WH pays women less than men, ends the War on Women.
As I say, the Demos are on a real cold streak.
If I was in GZ's shoes, I would want this to actually happen. It's the "win/win" situation. Acquitted in a court of law due to a preponderance of evidence may let you come out of hiding and not be killed. Taking it to trial avoids all the racism that is trying to be pinned on the Sanford government.
To date, the entire election has been about squirrels.
Because it's all about the women. Everything is all about women.
We haven't had this much excitement since Cain..
But seriously.. the women did wonders for Clinton.
I'm in favor of women.
"Acquitted in a court of law due to a preponderance of evidence..."
In a criminal trial, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why do women fall for this bullshit?
Why do liberal women call conservative women (today Ann Romney) cunts, bitches and assholes in their tweets and on their blogs? See the tweets Michelle Malkin has copied onto her blog for evidence.
Hilary Rosen was, like so many other women who are political activists and strategists for the Obama campaign, used by the campaign to degrade other women. What nonsense. They are happily and blindly willing to be good little girls on behalf of the president and his party.
Lady parts, birth control, racial and economic divisivness, war on women, etc are all just smoke screens to cover the fact that Obama administration has no budget, no plan and no economic record on which to base its campaign.
And some women are willing to fall for this bullshit.
I liked Rosen in the last general election...seemed like a down-to-earth straight shooter, but this was an unforced error like the time Hilldog made the crack that she wasn't the kind of woman to bake cookies.
Michael Haz, consider the unconsiderable: women might be stupid.
Michael Haz said...
"Lady parts, birth control, racial and economic divisivness, war on women, etc are all just smoke screens to cover the fact that Obama administration has no budget, no plan and no economic record on which to base its campaign."
Michael,
Is the new abortion law just signed by Governor Brewer today a smoke screen?
Very well put, Madame, in the additional dialogue.
The Demos, and really all of the Left, as I have said before, are like the Communist party in the last 20 years of the USSR - they don't believe in anything, they're just hanging onto power.
Helping people died with the War On Poverty.
(is that a theme?)
WV "chtlyst" (no kidding) What Hilary Rosen is on.
For life.
Ann Romney's classy interview with Martha MacCallum is the turning point for Romney's campaign and the downgrade of Obama's. Rosen's another cheap shot was that Mitt was old fashioned and he didn't really believe that men and women are equal. Somebody should show Mitt's mom Lenore's senate campaign in 1970 to Rosen. She was no shrinking violet and her husband no misogynist. If growing up with those parents and especially a strong mother, is any evidence of Mitt's relationship with women, it is a pretty good one.
And as the great mime, Marcel Marceau, once said.
Too dumb for words.
There was not a slip. It's a symptom of the cocoon problem. These are people who sit around talking to each other, and no one else, assured in the conceit that they are the smartest people.
Bill Clinton was the last national Democratic politician who could avoid this kind of thing, because of his relatively modest upbringing, because of his generally dependable political instincts, and because he really was smart.
Obama and his coterie of hangers-on possess none of Clinton's skills. They think they do, though. So, it's hubris waiting to happen, constantly. It's actually a wonder that this kind of thing doesn't happen more frequently.
Hillary Clinton has to be getting more and more pissed by the day.
Political fanatics, like other fanatics, don't/can't see the hole they're stepping in. They're smart, clever, shrewd, and ruthless, but they don't control the narrative as much as they think they do. The narrative is slowly changing liberals and political feminists are participating in their own demise. The pendulum swings.
It's the turning point in the presidential race... strangely, and yet not surprisingly. The trajectory changes right here. Today.
Because it's all about the women. Everything is all about women.
Snarky!
What's fun about this is that Obama wants to avoid all the issues. He wants to avoid Obamacare, unemployment, inflation, and the debt. Hates talking about all that stuff. Apparently his entire campaign is going to be this sort of childish and unserious attack. "It's a war on women!"
And Romney has continually and seriously focused on Obamacare, unemployment, inflation, and the debt.
Romney has not attempted to make any kind of emotional connection with women. He's utterly rational. Cold. This has hurt him. But he's treating women like they are rational adults. He's treating women like they can think.
"It's a war on women!" is a theme that assumes feminine stupidity. So it's the liberals who have been condescending to women.
Romney has done nothing to offend women. He's just failed to make an emotional connection with them. So he has trailed in the polls among women. And yet the condescending nature of liberalism has truly come back to haunt them.
Making an issue of his wife (his emotional partner), perfectly illustrates the contempt many feminists have towards emotional, silly women, who prefer emotional connections to cold facts and logic. Ann Romney is a family woman. She's not into ideology, or facts, or data. She doesn't care about issues.
For women who want an emotional reason to vote for Romney, well, now they have one. His partner, his wife (the nice one! the sweet one!) is making that emotional connection for him.
As she likes Romney, we like Romney. He must be a nice man. She likes him! And we like her.
How many voters care about people more than issues? A lot!
The framing of Romney as cold or weird or aloof is a total fail with Ann Romney, who is none of those things. She's nice, she's normal, she's utterly feminine.
Obama is hoping he can rely upon bad emotions, fear and division. "It's a war on women!" But now this emotional appeal has been destroyed by the woman named Romney.
Making Ann Romney an issue in this campaign is insanely stupid. She will destroy you with niceness and warmth. You think she's irrelevant? It's a tag team marriage.
Yeah, that's right. She completes him. It's like Jerry Maguire!
36fsfiend said...
Is the new abortion law just signed by Governor Brewer today a smoke screen?
No, because late term abortions are very hazardous.
fiend's comment is the smoke screen.
Professor, I have continually written on your blog about the Democrats not feeling even the slightest need to be constrained by honesty or the truth.
Your analysis is so spot on, I feel as though we are beginning to win.
Boy did Rosen step into it.
Romney just became teflon coated thanks to the charming real woman at his side for life.
To the Dems must see what happened as a form of cheating. Real marriage for life was thought to be extinct like it is among the Post-Christian Progressive Democrats.
Rosen was like a hit person sent to plant a perfect IED on a contract hit, and like a backwards Claymore the bomb blew up as she was setting it and the explosion only hit the gang that hired it done.
It's not the same for the threshold hearing.
I believe, I believe...it's silly but I believe..."
Republicans keep chanting the mantra and knowning that an offhand remark doesn't a strategy make...it was just an offhand observation...and to hear the Republicans talk, poor Mrs. Romney was from hardscrabble and washed clothes on a rock and Mitt, well Mitt was born with nothin' (other than a millionaire father in the swells section of suburban Detroit with daddy both an auto compnay president and eventually governor...ahhh yes..yes..the common folk....
You guys have a 19 point female approval differential and its not because Mrs. Romney doesn't work, its because of failed Republican policies and abhorent attacks on female health issues. Clear? Got it? Noted.
"They let the mask slip. They let it show."
Not everybody suits up w/ your garb, Althouse.
And, presumably most masqueraders have less slippage/projection than yourself.
Anywho, I thought that cons were saying that this election will be about the economy. Now the cons plan to win by out pity-partying the Ds re gals. And, Rosengate is the foundation on which this strategy is built. WTF?
They started this "war on women" theme, but it was a means to an end
Nobody really believes that. Jan Brewer just signed a law that says life begins two weeks *before* conception. You know what all the implications for women that could mean. Romney is about 20 points behind Obama with women, and not because it's all in their pretty little heads. It's one of dozens and dozens weird bills introduced and passed by Republicans. They just can't help themselves.
Now Romney is sending his wife out to fight his battles for him in the media? Worst.Candidate.Ever.
Fox paws and lady parts. This is a very poetic thread.
Clearly you are not concerned, HD. So unconcerned that you came back to Althouse from -- what? -- a three year hiatus or so to assure everyone that you are unconcerned.
Remain calm. All is well.
Bumper stickers are cool.
Not as cool as the car's bumper, but still pretty neat.
Oh, and I love the meme that's out there that there is no war on women, but Obama and Democrats are waging it! Maybe Ron Johnson is in charge of messaging after all.
Wow! So many lefties in this thread immediately pouncing. This surely must not matter. You are not concerned. Not in the slightest.
Seven Machos said...
Hillary Clinton has to be getting more and more pissed by the day.
-----------------
And a 10s of millions of her supporters.
Appreciate your comments very much, Seven Machos.
The campaign made its move. And then... the slip.
Doesn't this proposition create a problem.. that in order for Romney to benefit from this "slip" it would by default be also accepting the proposition that women were buying into the war.. that they were.. you know.. less than agile at picking up on the democratic manipulation?
I'm just exploring one more possible way in wich Obama is not responsible for anything.
"Wow! So many lefties in this thread immediately pouncing. This surely must not matter. You are not concerned. Not in the slightest."
I can only speak for myself: As soon as I read about "Rosengate," I hustled over here because I knew that Althouse's inevitably predictable post would be an easy target.
The Democrats don't really believe anything.
Neither does Romney.
@Bob Ellison,
Michael Haz, consider the unconsiderable: women might be stupid.
There's much sociological work to be done on the stupidity of 21st century American female popular culture.
You want proof? Take a look at the magazines at your local grocery check-out stand. Those magazines are so high on the stupid meter, they make "Laddie" magazines and Bass Fisherman's Quarterly read like Kant by comparison.
This is what Hillary Clinton said when asked about a similar question in her recent Elle magazine interview:
As to whether you can be successful and have a passel of kids, she’s indignant. “But I just didn’t have any more children,” she says, “not that I didn’t want any more.” (She and Bill have said they had an appointment with a fertility specialist when Chelsea was conceived.) “Look at Nancy Pelosi! She had five children…. People—especially young women—need to rid their minds of this baggage that has been inherited. Because you can unfortunately caricature anybody: ‘Oh, she’s the woman who never wanted to get married and have children.’ Well, you don’t know what her life is like. Or, ‘She’s the woman who gave up her career and stayed home.’ Well, maybe that’s what she found most fulfilling. We have got to get beyond all of that pigeonholing.”
Elle's interview with Hillary That is, Hillary with 2 ls and not Rosen.
Come on, Peter. I expect the regular lefty louts here to say silly things. But you are so much better than that. You are a thoughtful person. You don't really believe that.
A 19 point deficit with women?
Only in polls that sample 41% Demos and 24% Republicans.
I know hd and garage wish that was the spread, but it ain't, so you're kidding nobody but yourselves, if even that many.
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
Anywho, I thought that cons were saying that this election will be about the economy. Now the cons plan to win by out pity-partying the Ds re gals
And guess what?
The Demos are getting their asses kicked even on the social stuff.
But, not to worry, the economy is the 800 pound gorilla. We all see it at the gas station, the convenience store, the supermarket.
We see it every time the BS (the L is silent anymore) notes the number of jobless claims went up (unexpectedly, why always unexpectedly?) or the number of jobs added was well below estimates. And everybody seems to notice the phony U3, accentuated by the number of people whose unemployment has run out.
The economy is out there and the Romster is running on it.
If the Demos want to keep hanging themselves with these phony contretemps that alienate more and more of the electorate - fine.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Of course, Hillary goes under the bus, and understandably so, for profoundly stupid comments, but she doesn't get it. She's not stupid; she's blind and brainwashed and inexperienced--just like the President.
They believe their own bullshit, but it's moments like this that expose them. Of course, they will respond strategically by doubling down on the lies, and hiding behind the corpses under the bus, and counting on our national imbecility.
Good God Almighty, is there anything stupider than the alleged Republican war on women, or the Buffet Rule?
YoungHegelian, you stop short. Women might be stupid.
Romney has been running against Obama for one (1) day. And the Obama team already has its foot in a bucket.
Take a look at the magazines at your local grocery check-out stand.
Come on, dude. You think Maxim and FHM and Men's Health are any different? The headlines are exactly the same, just differently gendered.
Or how about Hustler? Sure, the articles are great, and that's why I still have a subscription, but there's quite a bit of base stuff going on as well.
A good film about the mask slipping:
A Face In The Crowd
Here, the folksy radio star speaks freely, unaware the mic is on, broadcasting his disgust of his adoring audience.
Lonesome Rhodes: This whole country's just like my flock of sheep!
Marcia Jeffries: Sheep?
Lonesome Rhodes: Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers - everybody that's got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don't know it yet, but ...They're mine! I own 'em! They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for 'em.
Bumper stickers are a lot like tattoos.
VERY personal.
Something you just DO for yourself.
And the Obama team already has its foot in a bucket.
It doesn't matter.. the bar will just lowered so that Obama prevails.
My family and I headed into the Wegman's parking lot in Northern VA today, and I saw an expensive SUV with huge bumper stickers. One was an Obama '12 sticker, and the other one said in huge black letters: "Stop the War on Women." I felt incensed for the rest of the day at the inanity of that ridiculous bumper sticker.
I was flabbergasted. When did this election turn to social issues?
I am a married woman with a husband who faithfully works at a boring job that pays the bills. I facilitate an education for my three kids at home, and I have always cared for them full time since they were all born. Obama said staying home was a "luxury" his family couldn't afford. Well, maybe it is, but we were headed to Wegman's for some luxurious ground beef and peanut butter.
I made the choice 10 years ago to live on a shoestring. Do I "work"? I have several little jobs that I do to help the family. One is directing a local classical education group.
Is there a war on me? I don't know. Is this all about birth control? Or health care?
I'm starting to think about men in all of this. Obama, a thoroughly privileged Harvard Law School graduate, said he couldn't afford the luxury of his wife staying home. Apparently, Obama sees that as a luxurious, enviable option, right? Well then, why didn't he be the man and make it happen?
Romney, a Harvard business graduate, decided that he could do that for his wife.
My husband gets by with nothing luxurious at all. He is happy if he can afford some good beer once in a while. He doesn't get to buy stuff - ever. He drives a beater to work. But he loves his family, and he makes the sacrifice. My father was the same way.
Why are we continually called upon to think of ONLY the poor single working mother, when we don't demand any responsibility from the men? I am convinced that government is a poor substitute for a husband when a woman finds herself with children.
Also, I find it fascinating that women would trade free $10 birth control pills for a $300 utility bill and a $200 gasoline bill.
"...I saw an expensive SUV with huge bumper stickers. One was an Obama '12 sticker"
Last time around I saw a new (still had temporary plates) Bentley Continental w/ a BHO sticker.
"...an expensive SUV..."
What exactly makes for and "expensive SUV?"
I have a family member who just spent $70M on a VW hybrid. That seems expensive, especially for a VW!
There was a kind of "slip" moment in 2008.. Remember the "bitter clingers"?
I'm very pessimistic this will turn into a significant surge for Romney.
It's a turning point. There will be more.
"The dogs bark and the caravan moves on."
Without Hilary Rosen, who is afflicted with a bad case of bus crush.
$70M on a VW hybrid
That's quite a bit of money, even if you mean K. Or a very swarthy dealer and a very dumb, extremely wealthy person.
I don't know what's sadder: that the Dems think women can be won over with free birth control versus Rush or that the Repubs think they can do it with Moms versus Rosens.
It looks like a lot of people all around think women are really dumb and superficial. Maybe they're right. I can't think of any similar silly ways to win men's votes. Maybe women think they will still get in the lifeboats first when things get bad. Don't be surprised when you find them full of beta males.
It won't turn for Romney.
Romney has to make it turn. I think that's the difference between him and Junior. He will make a way to make it turn.
Jane said...
I was flabbergasted. When did this election turn to social issues?
Not sure, but it does seem to make it a very good thing Mitch Daniels is not the nominee.
She's just visited the White House, what, 35 times?
Eleven or twelve times. Jay Carney said he personally knows three so I divided.
Is he the best or what? Adorable liar. He's the kind of person I sought when the professor divided us into groups. I was always right that his type pulled more than their part.
Jane said...
----------
I enjoyed reading your comment. There was a lot of depth in how you view your choices and your world in that little snippet.
And to answer your question why Obama would not offer his wife the luxury of staying home, well he was a lazy ass and he was the non-working, non-money making spouse in the relationship despite his Harvard degree.
It won't turn for Romney.
Romney has to make it turn.
Which of the wives Cadillac will he use..?
I don't mean to be an iceberg.. but Romney has had a tendency to gaff and miss the turns..
Seven,
I use M for 1000. Bankers do this. BTW, Althosue does too.
Re my sister: they went through Costco, so they did have a good price. That car is more expensive than folks would think, which is precisely what makes it appealing to many folks who like luxury sans flash, i.e. non-Cayenne buyers.
[They did buy a warranty extension and LoJack. Neither of which are usually considered to wise purchases [unless you own the dealership that is selling them].]
Here's what you negative nancies are not thinking about: it's not 2008. The last election was absolutely, bizarrely crazy. It was a coronation for an inexperienced, relatively young man who ran on a platform of nothingness -- hope and change. He was going to change the discourse, get everybody to like us, and pay the mortgages by virtue of some undisclosed vision.
The media was in the tank. More importantly, Republicans weren't going to win in almost any circumstance, anyway. People were very tired of Republicans, and the Republicans themselves were exhausted of ideas and even, it seemed, integrity.
This year is much different. The economy is a shambles. Nothing is better in any way than it was. Obama has done nothing. The best his media lapdogs could ever say was that he was "leading from behind." They really said that.
Romney is going to focus on the economy and he is going to win. These goofy cultural issues that blow up in the faces of Democrats will continue, and they will be merely gravy. Nobody who is undecided is voting on gender, or foreign affairs, and certainly not social issues.
bagoh20 said...
birth control vs. Rush or stay at home moms vs. Rosens
---------------
This kind of thing works on women because they think and work like minorities. Minorities who are fearful that they won't get their share of the pie. They want protection and assurance that they will be taken care of.
In a criminal trial, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not that I want to hijack the thread, but with all the disgusting bullshit that has been promulgated by the MSM outlets about this case I doubt that GZ can get a fair jury trial in any venue in the United States. (Sharpton and a small army of second-string race hustlers have also been very busy shoveling manure on the, but we ought to expect nothing but simpleminded lies from those creeps.) It may be that Florida law allows the defendant to waive a jury trial in a felony case, but I haven't heard about this. This is why GZ will likely cop a plea to a lesser charge and get 5 years (out in two) and a felony conviction that will follow him forever. It's better than being assassinated by a BP goon, which is what will happen if he's acquitted.
This whole episode makes me literally sick whenever I think about it. Our famously free press has done its best to create a fact-free society, and they've succeeded brilliantly. We've got no history, no body of knowledge, only a fucking narrative. I blame Michel Foucault, among many others.
Another shame is that if Zimmerman is convicted of anything it will be almost impossible to bring any of the various news organs to court over their deliberate and malicious efforts to paint him as a vicious racist.
Lem said...
It won't turn for Romney.
Romney has to make it turn.
Which of the wives Cadillac will he use..?
I don't mean to be an iceberg.. but Romney has had a tendency to gaff and miss the turns.
Disagree.
He's shown a facility to pull out the big win when needed.
PS As most Americans use M for million and K for thousand, might be advisable to get with the program.
Dems think that women are stupid and they can be played with these false narratives. Me, I think most women are smarter than that.
I know that you and other people use M for thousand. I myself use either Q or the & sign. But that doesn't make either one of use correct.
Worst.Candidate.Ever.
Really? Ever hear of John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis? What are you 9 years old?
Seven,
Roman's liked their numerals.
Why hate?
It may be that Florida law allows the defendant to waive a jury trial in a felony case, but I haven't heard about this.
Please let's not hijack the thread. But here in Illinois you can definitely waive a jury trial. I would be thousands of dollars (Q or & or M) that a defendant can have a judge trial in Illinois. It is to my mind the least best thing to do, because you will likely get a middle sentence between a plea and a jury trial, and you are unlikely to sway a judge emotionally or any other way with evidence.
I would advise Zimmerman to take a jury trial.
I would bet in Florida. I know in Illinois.
Peter Hoh wrote:
Neither does Romney.
That's just infantile bullshit. Why would Romney be a Mormon, endure the scorn of influential East Coast Establishment types like Lawrence O'Donnell if he didn't believe?
Seven, who's the real Romney? The moderate Republican who ran for governor of Massachusetts or the "severely conservative" version that's running this cycle?
Not much to offer except to say that from where I am (where I've been all week, unexpectedly and last minute, in rural eastern Tennessee), all of this seems very far away;--another world, really, even more so than usual.
You know what it is that's going on in my head that I'm pouring cold water on this good news?
The Red Sox are off to a miserable start.. and I'm in a miserable mood as a result.
You could tell me anything right now.. and I would be like - 'so what'.
@&Machos,
Come on, dude. You think Maxim and FHM and Men's Health are any different? The headlines are exactly the same, just differently gendered.
Yes, the Laddie mags show a higher IQ than the Lady mags because the Lady mags care if Reese Witherspoon is pregnant, and the Laddie mags only care if the chick they're banging gets pregnant.
QED
Quaestor, I'm not questioning if his faith is sincere. I'm questioning what Romney really believes. His positions on core issues seem to undergo dramatic shifts.
Earlier in this campaign, he was in Ohio when asked about a law regarding collective bargaining. He was unable to answer a simple question -- are you for it or against it -- until he spoke with his aides.
And of course, the next day, he issued a statement that he was "110% behind" the law.
link
I don't think Romney has core political beliefs.
Hegelian -- So how to get six-pack abs, how to last longer fucking, how to do some goofy workout, and what David Beckham is up to these days are of some higher mental order?
Get over yourself.
Women are more than just a voting bloc: maintaining and augmenting the Dem demographic advantage among women voters in his favor is absolutely necessary for Obama to get re-elected.
We hear a lot about the "gender gap" when it comes to women.
But what about men-- you know, the other gender?
I haven't been checking those numbers-- but now I'm interested. According to the latest Fox News poll, right now, women are more likely to back Obama-- by 49 to 41 percent. Whereas men are more likely to support Romney-- by 52 to 38 percent. That's 8 points (D women advantage) vs. 14 points (R men advantage). Talk about a gender gap.
As Allahpundit puts it, Romney "doesn't need to win the [female] demographic, just to keep it close so that men carry him over the finish line." Whereas Obama has to pander, pander, pander to women to offset the (currently larger) R male advantage. Hence the "war on women" BS. Which has started to backfire. And now we've got Ann Romney out there.
Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
But I like our chances.
Peter -- The real Romney is fairly conservative businessperson who was able to get elected governor in ridiculously liberal Massachusetts, and who had to govern along side legislature with a liberal majority.
It's not hard to understand. Reagan was the exact same way, in California. He had an easier time only because the left was in full, silly flower when he was governor and the Democrats had not utterly lost blue-collar males yet.
Moreover, the same could be said of any politician in a democracy. I think you are trying too hard to find a reason to dislike Romney if all you can say is that he has no positions. That's okay, I guess. Throw in the intellectual towel if you want and just go with the team you root for. But at least be out front with what you are doing.
Good points, except for the small matter of your main premise. It wasn't the campaign that slipped. It was a CNN contributor. Oh well, I'm sure you won't mind. Carry on.
Clint -- Rosen is a Democratic political consultant.
But, carry on. Whatever it takes for you to continue to stay in the hive, where it's warm and you are smarter than the hoi polloi.
Good luck recreating the magic of 2008, dude. All that hope and change. Because God knows, you are going to need luck.
@Seven,
Humor is not one of your strong suites, is it?
So he was faking then, when he rejected the "Reagan-Bush" label and promoted his gay-rights cred.
Okay.
How do you know he's not faking now?
It wasn't the campaign that slipped. It was a CNN contributor.
If that was so why did POTUS rush to the mike to fix it?
Obama wants the bus to get better gas mileage.
Obama's best friends and closest allies want the bus to have a MUCH higher chassis.
Says the woman who will still vote for the President's re-election.
But only after a public flirt in the other direction.
hdhouse said...
...and to hear the Republicans talk, poor Mrs. Romney was from hardscrabble and washed clothes on a rock and Mitt, well Mitt was born with nothin' (other than a millionaire father in the swells section of suburban Detroit with daddy both an auto compnay president and eventually governor...ahhh yes..yes..the common folk....
When he ran American Motors in the 1950s and early 1960s, George Romney's salary never exceeded $250,000/yr, very good money for the day, but he was no megamillionaire. From the automotive histories I've read, he made less than $2 million in salary total in eight years while running AMC. After George Mason died suddenly and Romney was named president, his salary was $100K a year. Under his guidance the company got turned around, became profitable, and his salary got bumped. It was George Romney who coined the phrase "gas guzzling dinosaurs" about big American cars. He championed the compact Rambler. I suppose that liberals should like him because of his views on the auto industry, but then George had an R next to his name. Then he went into politics, running for governor of Michigan in 1962. So the Romneys were wealthy enough to help out Mitt and Ann, but not so wealthy that Mitt inherited any great wealth. He made his fortune himself. By Detroit automotive aristocracy standards, Mitt was born with a silver plated spoon in his mouth. Executives at Ford, GM & Chrysler made a lot more money than those at AMC.
Ronnie Schreiber
Cars In Depth
Here's a video of George Romney speaking before an American Motors Owners Club meet when he was 84, about a year before he died. Still a very sharp thinker. One reason why Michigan, despite the crappy economy here for the last couple of decades is still not in terrible fiscal shape is because George Romney lead the fight to rewrite the Michigan constitution to demand that Lansing have a balanced budget.
That way they can be, you know, like PLACED under the bus, without really, really dying.
Cause that would suck more than a bad tattoo.
Rob,
"If I was in GZ's shoes, I would want this to actually happen. "
So are you going to start the defense fund for Zimmerman? Going to trial is going to be vastly more expensive than having his attorney talk w/the prosecutor for a bit and help draft an adequate plea agreement.
Granted, it's horrible and worse for all of us if what Dershowitz says it true, but I don't see how Z. can bear the cost of it all on his own.
leslyn or Seven M.,
"Is that the same standard of proof for the threshold hearing?"
What threshold hearing? (Pardon me for not knowing, but I'm not an attorney in FL or anywhere else...)
The point to all of this is really quite obvious. The Obama campaign is currently polling behind Romney among male voters. Their overall edge is with women. There have been several recent articles describing Ann Romney as the "secret weapon" of Romney's campaign.
This was an attempt to cut Ann Romney off at the knees and devalue her input. The idea was to invalidate her as a "real" woman who is "in touch" with women's issues. Sort of like Democrats do to minorities who don't follow the Democratic Party line. A black American who is a Republican might be called a "house slave" or Uncle Tom, for example, in order to devalue and invalidate their message.
They have no managed to accomplish the opposite. In fact, not only has this blown up in their faces, it might have blown up their entire "war on women" meme, particularly since Santorum is now out of the race and can't provide them with more fodder for that line of rhetoric.
They attacked "Mom". What is more ironic is the fact that Barack Obama has so little work experience himself outside of elected office.
Now the rhetorical battlefield will shift the the other remaining demographic where Obama has a substantial lead; the 18-29 year old vote. They will accuse Romney of a war on the young. Biden fired the first shot today on that new battlefield. But the "war on women" is probably over at this point. At least it is over for a few months.
Is it just me or is Hope&Change! becoming particularly angry and bitter?
What happened was, in their efforts to attack Romney, the Dems suffered a strategery malfunction. Crossed wires caused a short circuit.
Crossed wires: i.e. two separate tactical strands of the Obama 2012 campaign against Romney momentarily met in Rosen's soundbite and short-circuited.
1. GOP "war on women" (Dem pandering to women)
2. Class warfare (spurring resentment of Romney's wealth)
Rosen was predictably going along on #1 (that's the meme the Dems are pushing now, #2 will come to the forefront later). But because they had to defend themselves against Romney's counterattack (Obama's economy hurting women), for a moment #2 came to the fore: i.e., Ann Romney's a rich bitch who's never worked a day in her life, so what does she know about the economy or jobs?
Short circuit. Because the "rich bitch" was tacit, implicit; what was explicit, what everyone heard out loud was: stay-at-home mom never worked a day in her life, so what does she know about the economy or jobs?
A stupid sneering insult to stay-at-home moms, i.e. a large number of women. Short circuit.
I had too much beer tonight so I didn't feel like getting up to change the channel after the 10 PM news, so accidently watched Nightline.
Wow, its almost like a Republican said this about a Democrat instead of vice versa.
And btw.. It been a long standing practice for "CNN contributors" to visit the WH.. all the time.
Hilary more like a go-between CNN and the White House to make sure the stories reflect the WH positions..
Nothing to see there.. Bush did it too. No?
Ann Romney as a housewife had a much easier time of if than most women. All the Romney boys learned to toilet train themselves before they were one month old-- save for the youngest one, the slow learner, who did not learn until he was nearly two months old. Instead of diapers they wore swiffer cloths and cleaned the elegant hardwood floors of the Romney mansion. The eldest child was making gourmet meals before he has five. He was featured on Emeril. He made dinner. The middle child prepared lunch and breakfast. Nothing fancy. He didn't have sufficient arm strength to julienne the vegatables. All in all, Ann Romney had a pretty easy time of it.
yashu said...
-------------
Pretty good diagnosis. I am sitting here laughing.
when he rejected the "Reagan-Bush" label and promoted his gay-rights cred
First of all, what you are saying and what you have said is absurdly simplistic -- like Weekly Reader level.
Second, why would any politician accept the label of previous presidents? Except Obama, who believes he is Lincoln and both Roosevelts and Reagan and probably Taft and Coolidge, too.
Third, what part of Romney's campaign has been against gays and their rights?
It is one of my most stern edicts that anyone who brings up strawmen has lost the argument and, also, is virtually always pretty stupid. But I have to say you've got yourself some fine ones there.
Is Meade a stay at home mom?
I would note that Ann Romney never let raising a family interfere with her dressage activities. On the other hand, learning that Ann is a horse (wo)man is a big positive in my book.
"Dressage is a sport of seven-figure horses and four-figure saddles. The monthly boarding costs are more than most people’s rent. Asked how many dressage horses she owns, Mrs. Romney laughed. “Mitt doesn’t even know the answer to that,” she said. “I’m not going to tell you!”
Ann Romney
New York Times 2007
"Is it just me or is Hope&Change! becoming particularly angry and bitter?"
They can't campaign on their achievements because they don't have any, or at least not any that are popular with the voters. Not having anything of their own on which to base a campaign, they must resort to campaigning only against the opposition. Much of this involves setting up straw men and campaigning against those.
The idea here is to take a Republican campaign theme of "we want to get you working again so you don't need jobless benefits" and twisting it into "SEE! They want to take away your jobless benefits!" and campaigning on that.
The entire campaign is going to go in this direction because the economy doesn't look like it is going to turn around between now and November. There is a new slug of mortgage foreclosures working its way through the system that will depress home prices even more and tax increases coming up at the end of the year that might make the difference in people being able to afford their mortgage payments.
Romney will be able to ask in October the same thing Reagan asked "Are you better off now than you were four years ago". In the Fox News poll that came out tonight, nearly 25% of Independent voters were still "undecided". Those are going to be Romney votes this fall. I think everyone who is going to vote for Obama this fall has already decided.
Thanks, pm317. Rosengate is funny: it's like a Wile E. Coyote moment for the Dems.
There is a pretty good picture floating around the Internet of Ronald Reagan riding horses with HRM Queen Elizabeth II.
Didn't Obama send her an iPod or something?
That's winning hearts and minds, Muta. Is that the hope part or the change part?
But I know you are sure that class warfare will work now that gender warfare has failed so utterly and spectacularly. Flame forth. You control the narrative. Right?
Oh, I disagree, Ann, the Democrats, at least the hard liberal ones who control the Party, have very strong beliefs. they just know that a lot of them would be electoral suicide even among "normal" Dem voters, so they hide them.
they believe that conservatives are evil and should be put away or worse.
They believe that a human fetus is just a lump of cells even as it comes down the birth canal, and they're not so sure it's a human being even after it's born if the mother decides she doesn't want it.
they believe the US is a uniquely dysfunctional country and bears the greatest share of the blame for everything that's wrong in the world, and if we would just leave everyone else alone it would be all rainbows and unicorns.
they believe they know better than you how you should run your life.
they believe humans are a uniquely destructive force that should be controlled and reduced in numbers and scope because it threatens Gaia.
they believe in race war against whites, excepting of course themselves.
On and on. they believe a lot of things, very passionately.
They also believe the end justifies the means, which is why they are able to lie so effortlessly.
"On and on. they believe a lot of things, very passionately.
They also believe the end justifies the means, which is why they are able to lie so effortlessly."
I see it as a lot of self-loathing being projected onto the word around them. I am bad. My economic system is bad, my religion is bad, my race is bad, my species is bad ... etc.
Seven, my toss off line was in direct response to a toss off line -- i.e. the Democrats don't really believe anything.
It's banter. Enough with the "you're smarter than that" bullshit.
You're better than that.
les/7m,
No worries, I see elsewhere that you must be talking about the Florida self-defense immunity thing. Got it.
Seven, who's the real Romney? The moderate Republican who ran for governor of Massachusetts or the "severely conservative" version that's running this cycle?
Three "F"s:
-filthy rich
-flip flopper
- funny underwear.
2 out or 3 so far today. C'mon, someone's gotta bring up his weird Mormon faith.
ALTHOUSE: "The scandal is: They let the mask slip. They let it show."
Yep. Both there AND with the #Trayvon thing. They launched, without knowing "Zimmerman" was not white. Their mask slipped completely off.
You nailed it.
Is a toss off line the same as something not good? Or is just vacuous? Or is it just half-hearted phoning on of argument because you've got nothing to say and you know it?
Sorry to expect better. Noted. But you do sound frustrated.
Rose -- Isn't it pretty clear that Zimmerman killed another person in a fight? No one should be particularly upset about this, except insofar as it is a crime and another useless ending to a human life full of dignity.
So!
Least here at Althouse,
What began as an "It's all about the women" thread gave way to Trayvon Martin yet again.
Ladies?
Move aside please.
Dead man walking.
Sorry to expect better. Noted. But you do sound frustrated.
No shit. We've got a dysfunctional government, unable to reign in the entitlement disaster that's about to swamp us. And instead of addressing it, we're arguing about some stupid toss off line.
If only the Trayvon Martin story could have a gay marriage angle, well, we'd never talk of anything else again.
We've got a dysfunctional government, unable to reign in the entitlement disaster that's about to swamp us.
I believe that's Romney's platform in a nutshell.
I think you'll come around. I really do. This is going to be the year you came to the dark side, Peter. But the benefit of the dark side is that it is the reality side.
This is just the beginning. If the citizens of the United States re-elect Obama we will get exactly what we deserve.
Just keep on remembering the past 4 years of incompetence, fumbling and outright insanity starting with Obama and running through every part of his administration.
Nothing has been said, revealed, exposed, offered, or lied about that persuades me that there is any possible worse choice than Obama.
Eyes on the prize.
Romney's platform will be no different than any other: pander and punt.
Started to say "you're finally coming around the mountain" and something about Meade having a plough but alas people read too much into weak metaphors so I stopped myself.
Lots of interesting replies on Twitter to @thenation, et al. E.g., Hilary Rosen says "spare me the faux conservative outrage" and commenter retorts, so is Axelburg's claimed outrage faux, too? The Nation exhorted via tweet that a mother's work be valued in real wage terms. Someone shot back something like, "oh, and now the state wants to set up employer/employee relationship between husband and wife? Brilliant!" Paraphrasing but you get the drift.
I can now say I'm a "leg" woman. For this slip-'o-the-mask may they grow ever longer.
Forgive typos, can't see what I wrote via iPad.
I can't help but wonder if this wasn't intentional. Rosen is PR. Communications is her job. Nuance is her "special sauce". She HAD to know this would be perceived exactly the way it was perceived.
I am wondering if this wasn't payback for Obama punting on the anti-gay discrimination issue.
"No shit. We've got a dysfunctional government, unable to reign in the entitlement disaster that's about to swamp us. And instead of addressing it, we're arguing about some stupid toss off line."
But the mothers! and twitter! and mothers! and babies!
This is way more fun. Who wants to talk about the economy?
This silly doesn't come close to a watershed moment. There is no gender gap with married moms.
Now the bad economic news today - that is actually significant for the election.
"Why do women fall for this bullshit"
Good question, i have never understood why a majority of women vote dem almost every time in presidential elections.
Romney's platform will be no different than any other: pander and punt.
Peter Hoh,
Romney has embraced Paul Ryan's plan. And closely allied himself with Paul Ryan himself, in a very high profile way. And did so not in the thick of the primaries (when Romney might have needed to pander to conservatives), but on the brink of the general election.
Paul Ryan: characterized by Dems as a scary cruel extremist grandma-killer. So much so that Newt (supposedly more "conservative" than Romney) infamously distanced himself from him on Meet the Press. If Romney was just concerned with winning the election (winning over moderates and independents and disaffected Dems) and just wanted to pander and punt, by those calculations a high-profile bromance with Ryan doesn't seem like a sensible tactic to me. It's risky for Romney to identify himself with Ryan, to tout him at the start of the general election-- and hence to the general electorate.
That tells me that Paul Ryan's concerns are also Romney's concerns, concerns that will be a significant part of Romney's campaign, his conversation with the general electorate, and his priorities if elected. Paul Ryan's plan and concerns-- based as they are on difficult facts and politically difficult remedies-- are the opposite of pandering, the opposite of facile "hope and change". There's no political upside to faking a bromance with Ryan, no political upside to faking an embrace of Ryan's views. It only makes sense of it's serious and genuine on Romney's part. I believe it is.
I'd love to see Ryan as VP. But even if he's not (he might be more effective where he is), it's clear that Romney and Ryan see each other as a team in their shared diagnoses of America's gravest ills and their policy prescriptions. Diagnoses and prescriptions that aren't fodder for pandering.
"i have never understood why a majority of women vote dem almost every time in presidential elections."
Because Democrats want to "help" people and Republicans are big ol' meanies, don'tcha know.
Hilary Rosen was, like so many other women who are political activists and strategists for the Obama campaign, used by the campaign to degrade other women. What nonsense. They are happily and blindly willing to be good little girls on behalf of the president and his party.
That's just it.
All of these things- women's issues, the black community, the Hispanic vote- are really just code words for Democratic issues.
All of these so-called voting blocks are made up of individuals who used to fight to be seen as such.
Why we let politicians use these terms as if they makes sense, I'll never know.
But I'm hoping the Romneys have managed to call their bluff on the "women's issues/war on women" crap.
@Seven Machos
Damn, man. So you know that the Trayvon Martin shooting was a crime? Even before the trial? And the evidence is presented.
How 'bout we wait for that little detail to work itself out before we go to pontificating about tragedies. It might be, it just might be, that there was a crime being stopped by the shooting.
But why let facts get in the way of your narrative. You do a lot of preachin', but you got no sermon.
Garage :Worst.Candidate.Ever.
Alex:Really? Ever hear of John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis? What are you 9 years old?
Alex, Garage is just the average Democrat party hack who pretends that he is not the average Democrat party hack.It's pathetic but regulars of this blog have come to expect this kind of nonsense from Garage by now.
What ever Romney is or is'nt, he is any day better than all the Democrat buffoons from Massachusetts who ran for the highest office in the land - and i say this as some one who does not like him at all.
Actually, I agree with the comments here that Romney does not believe in any thing other than furthering his career and closely resembles Obama in this regard.
It is a real shame that 2012 is shaping up to be a so called contest between two power hungry politicians who resemble each other more closely than either of them or their supporters would dare to admit.
Romney and Obama have successfully coerced people into buying health insurance - unfortunately for them and fortunately for the citizens of this country,neither of them can mandate people to vote for them.
At least not yet.
Carnifex -- First of all, you are a silly, silly person who believes that President Obama forged his own birth certificate.
Secondly, Zimmerman killed another person in a fight. Let me help you along with the logic, as I know it is difficult for you.
There is no question that Zimmerman killed Martin. This fact is firmly established. Martin is dead and Zimmerman shot Martin, and Martin died from a bullet wound.
There also seems to be no question that these two people had a verbal altercation and some kind of physical one. Another word for that is fight.
So, when I say that Zimmerman killed another person in a fight, it's quite obviously true, and I think even a person of your limited mental abilities can now understand and accept the statement.
A jury may very well find Zimmerman not guilty of murder for a host of reasons. The best one that I can see from Zimmerman's defense's perspective is self defense.
No shit. We've got a dysfunctional government, unable to reign in the entitlement disaster that's about to swamp us. And instead of addressing it, we're arguing about some stupid toss off line.
Did you hear Carney's response to the Rosen question yesterday? He listed all the government programs that "help women" that Paul Ryan wants to cut, because he hates women.
Pell grants (half go to women!), Medicare (a majority is spent on women!), Headstart (this helps women because it's for children) are all programs and entitlements that the government caringly spends money on for women.
This argument *is* a proxy argument about entitlements. What do you think "women's issues" are?
Women watch the soap opera media.
That's how election campaigns are determined by fluff and crap.
The media wants audience, the democrats want narrative. They trade.
In a guy's world, there would be no further campaign, and Obama's simply out next fall. No narrative.
Let's take a look at the media.
Obama doesn't insert himself into every big sporting event to get votes from women, rh.
Looking at Rosen's demeanor and Paul Begala's nodding acceptance, I am struck by the lack of political savvy that Rosen showed.
There was no need to go there and she was not being egged on to go there.
IMO the the other shoe has yet to drop, since I cannot imagine Rosen to be so dense.
There are dozens of Rosens that work in the Obama campaign and the Obama people know it. And fear that this will happen again and again. Because Rosen was only voicing what they all believe and sooner or later what they say to each other will be said to the press.
Your affect of objectivity, Althouse, would be a huge joke to anyone who does not solidly identify as a conservative.
The Dems just "made it all up," huh? Their "mask" slipped, did it? Because Rosen's comment (how dare she suggest that Anne Romney can't relate to tough economic times! Anne's a mother, and being a mother is hard work!) nullifies the GOP zealotry over social issues generally and women's reproductive rights specifically.
Crazy politicos passing laws making it ok for doctors to withhold medical information from pregnant women. Actual laws. One bunch of especial nutbags, the Arizona GOP, declaring pregancy to be two weeks before conception. This is very representative of GOP policies and you wonder why they are pereceived as hostile to women's rights?
But yeah, the Dems are making it all up.
leslyn said...
MARTIN: DON'T TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE, HATEMONGER.
LOL
Nobody is. He's simply repeating what you yourdelf have told us over and over.
Once you've got Althouse, you've got middle America
"I can't help but wonder if this wasn't intentional. Rosen is PR. Communications is her job. Nuance is her "special sauce". She HAD to know this would be perceived exactly the way it was perceived."
-- Or she is just an incompetent. She pushed SOPA thinking it would be popular. I'm going with she's incompetent.
"Actual laws. One bunch of especial nutbags, the Arizona GOP, declaring pregancy to be two weeks before conception."
-- People keep saying this, yet never link to the text of the bill. As, every other time Democrats have told me some Republican bill did something horrendously stupid, when I actually look at the text of the bill, it does no such thing, I must ask: Show me the bill, or stop hyperventilating. Huffington Post and the Daily Kos have wasted their good will and public trust, show me the bill.
Obama the Divider.
Men vs. women
Old vs. young
Black vs. white
Black vs. latino
Latina vs. white males
Women employed vs. stay-at-home-moms
Ultra rich vs. rich
Rich vs. middle income
Middle income vs. everyone else
Indebted vs. debt-free
Socialists vs. everyone else
Gov't. employees vs. everyone else
Gov't income vs. everyone else
Global warmers vs. deniers
Gun owners vs. deniers
Planned parenthood vs. Breast cancer
Is there anything he can't make more divisive?
It is a real shame that 2012 is shaping up to be a so called contest between two power hungry politicians
Quite the disappointment, after all those other elections with the non-power-hungry politicians.
Matthew,
Over the years I have noticed that it is a trademark of intellectual dishonesty for people of all political persuasions, to demand "links." As your own comment betrays, this is really just a way to divert attention from the substance in question to the messenger. On a DailyKos thread some years ago I linked to something on Fox News, I can't remember what, dutifully responding to the demand for a "link," and it was met by about fifteen comments of scorn before someone finally realized that Fox had simply pasted a story from the AP.
So it is the way with all things, it seems.
If you think it is okay to protect doctors from lawsuits who withhold medical complications/issues, fine. If you think it is okay to tinker with the definition of pregnancy as a further way to draw down access to abortion, fine. Then celebrate the laws. But it is intellectually dishonest to act as though these bills don't exist.
PS, The bill does no such thing.
It defines pregnancy as this: 9. "Pregnant" or "pregnancy" means a female reproductive condition of having a developing unborn child in the body and that begins with conception.
So, whoever told you that thing about the two weeks before conception? Lied to you. Lied to your face because they think you are an idiot unable to go to the bill and read how they defined things. They knew that you trusted them and would not check their statements. They used you.
Here's what the law says: Doctors need to estimate the age of the fetus. That estimation should go back as far as the last time they knew that the woman could not be pregnant, unless they can use tests to find out otherwise: " That the physician is responsible for estimating the gestational age of the fetus based on the ultrasound examination and obstetric standards in keeping with established standards of care regarding the estimation of fetal age as defined in rule and shall write the estimate in the patient's medical history. The physician shall keep original prints of each ultrasound examination of a patient in the patient's medical history file."
So, in other words, if they can't get a better guess, then they have to default to assuming the fetus is the oldest it possibly can be.
Be more intellectually curious.
"f you think it is okay to tinker with the definition of pregnancy as a further way to draw down access to abortion, fine."
Crazy laws are the offspring of crazy judicial commands.
Making abortion on demand a right split the country, and we're still dealing with it.
Democrats are dividers, but they don't understand that the discussion doesn't end just because they say so.
Leslyn said,
"Get past the bullshit, baggage and pigeonholes already. I'm fortunate I had parents who were gender-neutral. Little did they know how far ahead of the times were."
Ah the left, always trying to set policy by ancedote (which is usually a lie, made up to justify theri silly position). So you are a hermaphrodite?
The other bill also does no such thing.
It reads:
"A. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful birth based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a child or children would not or should not have been born.
B. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful life based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the person bringing the action would not or should not have been born.
C. This section applies to any claim regardless of whether the child is born healthy or with a birth defect or other adverse medical condition.
D. This section does not apply to any civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including an act or omission that violates a criminal law."
We can argue over whether we need a law (I don't think so), but it does not allow them to withhold information. Note that it does not apply for an "intentional or grossly negligent act," so if you intentionally withhold information, the act does not apply.
Stop believing everything you are fed.
Matthew,
Nobody lied about this bill; at least I haven't seen any lies about it. Certainly the text you quote does not contradict anything I said. Invest less in trying to make it sound reasonable and trying to cloak the naked intent. Be a better reader. Think of the intent, and more importantly, think of how it will be applied. And BTW, have you taken a second to think about what that language regarding "admittance" to a hospital actually means?
I'm sure you are similarly apologetic for the langage sheilding doctors from lawsuits. Yes?
And this, Harrogate, is why I ask for links. Because they often provide facts. Key, sweet, delicious facts that help me understand what is being put forward.
Now, maybe I have the wrong bills. If so, sally forth. Show me the right bills I should be looking at. But neither of these do either of the things people claimed they did. So, you can understand why I demand links for outrageous claims. Because they are at outrageous, and therefore, demand a higher level of proof than: "I heard Arizona did this bad thing!"
Ah. There we go. So its not what the bills actually say and do, such as not really re-defining pregnancy, it is what you think they will do.
Got it. We're not having a reasoned discussion on the bills, we're trying to scare women. Why didn't you just say this wasn't a fact-based discussion but rather a scare tactic? If you had been so shameless at first, we could have skipped the part where I showed that the laws weren't what everyone was saying and get straight to us disagreeing because you didn't care about the truth.
Ahhh, I see that you leapt to the obfuscation wheel on the lawsuit language in the interim. Predictable.
"We can argue over whether we need a law (I don't think so), but it does not allow them to withhold information. "
Hahahahahahaha
Seven Machos said...
" Carnifex -- First of all, you are a silly, silly person who believes that President Obama forged his own birth certificate.
Secondly, Zimmerman killed another person in a fight. Let me help you along with the logic, as I know it is difficult for you.
There is no question that Zimmerman killed Martin. This fact is firmly established. Martin is dead and Zimmerman shot Martin, and Martin died from a bullet wound."
And there's where one can tell that you are not a "Conservative", and that this is just a role you play on the internet, as an operative of the Usurper. Alinsky, and the strawmen you erect give you away. The ridicule, first off, is a dead giveaway, and the misrepresentation of Carnifex's position, that "Obama's BC is forged", as "Obama forged his BC" is the clincher. It's fun to play a role on the internet huh? Bootlicker. You are just another Useful idiot, like Rosen and all the others, many in the media, who are the dead souls that protect the Usurper. Treason is the word.
Women were out there, so numerous, so richly exploitable. The campaign made its move. And then... the slip.
My youngest sister-in-law, 22 and in college (in Utah, no less) posted a picture of Romney on Facebook last night with NO BIRTH CONTROL, NO PLANNED PARENTHOOD, NO CHOICE emblazoned on it. Her comment was "What a shit!"
There were a couple of comments of support from, I'm assuming, her feminine cohorts. I simply posted, "Have you read up to see what Romney's positions on those issues are or are you just swallowing the agitprop whole. Thirty minutes later, the posting was removed without comment.
And, maybe you didn't lie. You just repeated untruths:
"Crazy politicos passing laws making it ok for doctors to withhold medical information from pregnant women. Actual laws. One bunch of especial nutbags, the Arizona GOP, declaring pregancy to be two weeks before conception."
-- Both of those things are clearly wrong, from the text of the bills. Unless we are supposed to read into them some secret, malicious intent that does not exist in the text, and then assume everyone will enforce this secret intent. You were lied to and believed it; that's OK. It's not OK to keep insisting it is true now that you have the text in front of you.
It's not what I or anyone else thinks it will do. It's what it DOES do. A legislative body overtly hostile to abortion rights cannot ban abortion outright so they do what they can to banish it through other means. Like leaving doctors room to add extra time to the age of the fetus. And like complicating the legal understanding of a doctor's responsibility to divulge relevant medical information to their patients, regardless of said doctor's (totally irrelevant) feelings about abortion.
The doctor's do not have that room. They must base it on probable gestation age, which they must arrive at through one of two things. Tests, etc., or from the last point the woman knew she couldn't be pregnant. They are required to use the best of the two, which is going to be the tests most of the time.
It is not complicated at all. If a doctor does not tell you something inadvertently, for example, a test comes back that doesn't raise alarms at the time, can't be charged. If he or she -hides- the test and intentionally does not tell you the results, then you can sue.
"It's what it DOES do."
So prove it.
Cite the language that "does" what you say it does.
Otherwise admit you're just another political liar.
Though, would you be aghast if people assumed that the intent of the Affordable Care Act was to lead to rationing to drive down costs? "It's not what the bill says! It is the intent of the bill!" Or, are only Republican motives to be questioned?
The bills may be bad law, but they are not horror shows designed to invade the uterus of women everywhere. There's rational reasons to be against them, but the reasons that are being given aren't them.
Good grief, the "best of the two." So much wrong with this. But the main thing is, if you do not see that this patently means that age estimates are going to demonstrably increase, then you are just not looking. That is not only the intent of the bill but cannot but be the effect of the bill.
And, how is one to prove that the doctor "hid" or "intentionally" didn't tell? That's the whole goddamned point.
Jesus fucking Christ. Stop obfuscating. Own the damned bill if you are on board with it.
Also, the language regarding "admittance" rules nicely slipped in their, dontcha think?
Matthew Sablan said...
"PS, The bill does no such thing.
It defines pregnancy as this: 9. "Pregnant" or "pregnancy" means a female reproductive condition of having a developing unborn child in the body and that begins with conception."
Sounds like an acceptable definition to me. But up is down and war is peace in the Usurper world, where sentence reads, "evil Republicans, financed by the Koch brothers, will rip women's vaginas right off their bodies, or will force you to carry a pregnancy to term."
Then there would be the obligatory anecdotal lie:
"I had a sister once who needed an abortion, because she would have died had she not gotten one right away, but this bill would have made her keep the baby, and she would have died."
And it goes on, like little children, more and more transparent the Useful idiots become.
@seven machos
Again..retard, Obama released a forged document...he clamed it was his birth certificate, your straw man argument is weaker than you logic...I do know where my BC is, I have the original, retard.
See how that name calling works retard? works real good, doeasn't it retard. Now answer the fucking question or admit you are a retard, retard
And if you were so fucking smart you would have realized that I said no judge would throw the One out, retard.
So until you up your fucking game you will be henceforth called "Retard"
retard.
Damn, I hate talking to retards.
I think the second bill is bad, because that should fall under the already existing malpractice law/regs. I mentioned that in passing earlier. I didn't read enough of what the first one amended to be on board with it or not, I read just enough to know if I was being lied to.
One proves it was hid intentionally the same way one would with any legal matter accusing someone of something. Through discovery and trial.
Are age estimates going to go up? Are doctors who are performing abortions looking to avoid them? If so, are they going to inflate the estimates? How do we know that they were not previously rounding down and lowering the estimates on ages? Why would a doctor who is performing an abortion suddenly decide to increase the age of the fetus beyond the age of which he or she could perform the abortion? Also, the woman could just lie about her last period. This seems to be a lot of noise over nothing.
You know something, Matthew?
In all honesty I hope you are right in your cavalier interpretation of these bills. That those of us "hyperventilating" over the itent and application of these bills will find that in fact, they will have no demonstrable effect on women's access to abortion and medical information. So Brewer has signed it, we shall see. I'll happily cede the point if you turn out to be right. As, I hope, critics of "Obamacare" will do, when no death panels or rationing appear on the horizon.
Carnifex said
"And if you were so fucking smart you would have realized that I said no judge would throw the One out, retard.
So until you up your fucking game you will be henceforth called "Retard"
retard"
But the left is utterly CONVINCED that they are real smart! By the way, no judge has to "throw Obama out", just make the Secretaries of the various states do their ministerial duty w/ discretion to Article 2--- like US law says they should (see Bush v. Gore).
If Obama were made to swear that he is a natural born Citizen, and made to actually present his BC for inspection (a pic on the internet is proof of nothing), then he would not run. The whole house of cards is built on lawyerly wordsmith, and not making him or the DNC pledge that he is Constitutionally eligible, and allowing the SOSs to not verify anything. He would not run if he had to outright lie. It would be game over, w/o the judge even making that determination.
Why can't I assume age estimates are going to go down, as women are going to decide to get abortions earlier and earlier? I could also assume they'll go down because, I dunno, evil abortionists or some such nonsense, will lie about the ages, as you assume evil anti-abortionists will lie about the ages. I see no reason to assume the ages will do anything. If it turns out that, yes, the ages do go down, and if we can prove that it is attributable to doctors lying to their patients, then we have a problem. But, I do recall that people say we shouldn't assume gay marriage will lead to the parade of horrors some social conservatives mention. Yet, when it comes to abortion, the parade of horrors is not only assumed to come true, but it is the entire point, as opposed to merely unintended consequences.
Stop assuming the other side is evil, and try to actually understand them and reach a compromise. You apparently feel this bill goes too far. It might; but you won't convince anyone by saying things that don't hold up when it is read.
Hillary Rosen also represents Sandra Fluke. The Obama campaign thinks women are morons. I guess we'll see.
Matthew
I most certainly do not assume that those with whom I disagree are evil. Not only am I invested in doing the opposite of that, but on a practical level that assumption would only screw me over anyway as I am someone who has changed his mind about things in the past about things, and surely will a few more times before he leaves this earth.
Of course litanies of lies and obfuscations and outright smears are made by both sides. And yes, sometimes I bite on them, and maybe that is what you have caught me doing here. I am stubborn but not immune to logic and big enough to admit that I parroted party line on te AZ Bill and assumed the worst intent because of that.
Indeed, the more I think about your posts, the more I think that I did, in fact, respond too strongly to liberal fears ignited by the AZ bill. Thanks for talking me down a bit. Again, I hope that you are right that the results of the bills will not be draconian as I imagined.
harrogate said
"I'll happily cede the point if you turn out to be right. As, I hope, critics of "Obamacare" will do, when no death panels or rationing appear on the horizon."
Of course there will be death panels. This administration has ALREADY said that "maybe grandma doesn't need that new hip", and in Britain and Canada, care is already being denied because of age (FACT). The cost will be a THOUSAND times more than they project, and it will be a black hole of rot and Communist meddling from which we will never recover. The bill was promoted by Emanuel's brother, who is a proponent of "death panels".
It is about POWER not care, or cost.
The government can't even run a business when there is a monopoly, duh!
No problem; I was probably overly harsh, and apologize if I came off that way.
The Obama campaign thinks women are morons.
Does this balance out the advertising industry and the entertainment industry thinking men are morons?
I think it is more that everyone is convinced voters and consumers are morons.
I'll happily cede the point if you turn out to be right. As, I hope, critics of "Obamacare" will do, when no death panels or rationing appear on the horizon.
I prefer to think of Obamacare less like an impending law and more like the Sword Of Damocles.
--Rosen was like a hit person sent to plant a perfect IED on a contract hit, and like a backwards Claymore the bomb blew up as she was setting it and the explosion only hit the gang that hired it done.---
In Rantburg-speak: Splodydope.
The Obama campaign thinks women are morons.
Does this balance out the advertising industry and the entertainment industry thinking men are morons?
I'd assume the men are morons trope is aimed at women.
Harrowgate: In all honesty I hope you are right in your cavalier interpretation of these bills. That those of us "hyperventilating" over the itent and application of these bills. ...Of course litanies of lies and obfuscations and outright smears are made by both sides. And yes, sometimes I bite on them, and maybe that is what you have caught me doing here
But don't you see the pattern? The Left gets you spun up about conservatives, you swallow it all and then hate us for something we never said or did. And the correction, which you never see, is a 3 months later at the bottom left of page A18.
How many times have you fallen for this? Is it quite possible that you have been misled like this all your life?
It's rare to find an instance of effective persuasion (and an acknowledgment of that persuasion) in a blog comments section; rare to find an exchange as reasoned and reasonable (in the end) as the one between Matthew Sablan and harrogate. Well done, by both of you.
Penny said: "Obama's best friends and closest allies want the bus to have a MUCH higher chassis."
haha. That made me laugh.
Dems think that women are stupid and they can be played with these false narratives. Me, I think most women are smarter than that.
It’s absurd to think that women are in any way disconnected from the economy, whether they are working or not. They’re still buying groceries, they’re still buying gas, they might still be balancing the books and paying the bills…this stuff matters. It matters to the whole country. That's all I want to hear Mitt talk about.
Hegelian -- So how to get six-pack abs, how to last longer fucking, how to do some goofy workout, and what David Beckham is up to these days are of some higher mental order? Get over yourself.
Thanks to Seven for saying what I didn’t have to! All magazines are stupid but they do have all those pretty pictures and that’s why we ‘read’ them!
--Crazy politicos passing laws making it ok for doctors to withhold medical information from pregnant women. Actual laws. One bunch of especial nutbags, the Arizona GOP, declaring pregancy to be two weeks before conception. This is very representative of GOP policies and you wonder why they are pereceived as hostile to women's rights?---
I thought you wanted the gov't to control womens' bodies, what's the issue? It's the wrong side?
Over the years I have noticed that it is a trademark of intellectual dishonesty for people of all political persuasions, to demand "links." As your own comment betrays, this is really just a way to divert attention from the substance in question to the messenger. On a DailyKos thread some years ago I linked to something on Fox News, I can't remember what, dutifully responding to the demand for a "link," and it was met by about fifteen comments of scorn before someone finally realized that Fox had simply pasted a story from the AP.
That is one of the stupidest things that I have seen in a long time here, and that takes a lot some days.
At least here, if you don't cite to your work, it will be assumed that you made it up. Plenty here who have done that over the years, and someone learning their lessons at ethics and decorum the DailyKos is esp. suspect.
Right now, you still some potential for making a first impression. You can be a commenter who makes outrageous statements that no one believes, or you can be one who shows his work and helps his readers, so they don't have to redo what you did. I use Google dozens of time a day. I appreciate it when someone does my work for me, and I don't need to. Plus, we know what you are talking about, when you cite to your sources. It takes 30 seconds to create a link. It shows a lot of that laziness that you deplore when you don't.
It’s absurd to think that women are in any way disconnected from the economy, whether they are working or not. They’re still buying groceries, they’re still buying gas, they might still be balancing the books and paying the bills…this stuff matters. It matters to the whole country. That's all I want to hear Mitt talk about.
I want to hear Mitt say: "Mr President, perhaps you should ask these Moms over to teach you how to balance a budget"
--harrogate said
"I'll happily cede the point if you turn out to be right. As, I hope, critics of "Obamacare" will do, when no death panels or rationing appear on the horizon."---
Of course there's rationing.
You can read their newspapers and their gov't reports.
I don't know if I pulled this from here or someplace else, so apologies:
When you spend your life as a community antagonizer, you lose tone in those empathy muscles, while you build up the "blame pipes" to epic proportions.
More succinctly, your job is to inflict pain, not feel it. First you wish to turn up the heat on the "victim's" pain, so that they are ready to lash out, in full adrenal fury.
Then you want to herd them into a pack, so that you can lead them to inflict pain on the "oppressors." Either direction, you, as the community antagonizer want to inflict more pain. Over and over and over again.
You are selling pain. You are marketing pain. You are pain enhancing. So, please don't misread the lips..."I fuel your pain" is NOT "I feel your pain."
So its not what the bills actually say and do, such as not really re-defining pregnancy, it is what you think they will do.
And 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. In fact, you can usually predict what nastiness they will engage in next by listening to what they are pretending conservatives are doing.
When they start claiming that conservatives are rioting and shooting liberals in the streets, its time to check your ammo.
Broads rule.
That's right, Maybee:
http://www.thedailyrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/president-barack-obama-rides-along-bike-path-correllus-state-forest-martha-vineyard-west-tisbury-massachusetts.jpg
A direct appeal to rh.
Leslyn,
I hear that problem is particularly bad in President Obama's White House.
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?
The result of this bill, if passed, would mean that single parenthood could be used against a parent in a dispute over fitness of a parent for custody... Grothman has emphasized this.
Where are you getting that?
I read the bill and all I see is a requirement that the Board spotlight how nonmarital parenthood is a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.
And 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.
Post a Comment