Althouse: "There is so much that is heinous about Brittany being used for political gain in this way..."

October 1, 2012

"There is so much that is heinous about Brittany being used for political gain in this way..."

"... but let’s start with the obvious thing, which is that neither Mitt Romney nor anybody running for office under the Republican banner is suggesting doing anything that would hurt her."

All right, National Review's The Corner, but I found it deeply affecting. I am a woman, and I vote.

291 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 291 of 291

Patrick said...: If your gender has anything to do with your vote, you need to rethink things.; 10/1/12, 10:44 PM
Tim said...: In a perverse, "let's watch a train-wreck" way, it will be fun to watch Ann Althouse contort and contrive her way to voting for Obama again.

Because, you see, for an Obama voter, none of the previous four years happened.

It's all about now, and right now, it's about a developmentally disabled woman complaining about Romney's "47%" comment.

None but a moron would believe Romney (or any politician elected to office) would target programs assisting the developmentally disabled.

But then, we have Obama voters, who, once believing Obama actually qualified for office, will believe anything his campaign says.

Gotta a credit the man - he knows his voters are idiots.; 10/1/12, 10:44 PM
El Camino Real said...: "I am a woman and I vote." Excellent reason to repeal the 19th Amendment. ;-); 10/1/12, 10:44 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: BTW..

I just want to clear something up... in another tread Althouse said she might not vote for either.

A vote for neither, is a vote for the status quo... A vote for the status quo is a vote for Obama.

I just want to make sure we are covered on that.

Althouse!.. Althouse!; 10/1/12, 10:49 PM
garage mahal said...: Aridog
I didn't see anything in the letter stating Romney would harm her. I took it as her wanting to let people know she makes contibutions, that she works, and that she is taking responsibility for her life to the best of her abilities. Contra Romney's remarks about the 47% that she is part of.; 10/1/12, 10:52 PM
nightowl said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/1/12, 10:52 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Traditional approach to winning votes: either state or imply that "All the smart people are voting for X." This definitely implies a corollary: "Don't be stupid and vote for the other guy!"

Doesn't this latest Obama ad do pretty much the exact opposite, associating having a very low IQ with voting for Obama, as if the two naturally go together, and isn't that a problem?

I mean, it's not that smart people are a majority of voters, but people who think (rightly or wrongly) that they are smart certainly are.

Tasteless new campaign slogan: "You don't have to be an idiot to vote for Obama, but it helps!"; 10/1/12, 10:52 PM
Anonymous said...: "If you're right, then maybe our fair hostess is the mean little kid with the magnifying glass shining on ants,..., Either way, it doesn't reflect well upon our hostess." 10/1/12 9:41 PM No, it doesn't. This coy game-playing ("guess what I meant!") is simply dishonest horseshit.; 10/1/12, 10:53 PM
Dr Weevil said...: P.S. If Brittany's working and paying taxes, isn't she part of the 53%?; 10/1/12, 10:53 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: What I would like to do with these two women and the gentleman, is to sit them all together and say, "Well, here we are."

They'll all agree that, yes, we are all there, all their head nod assent, and with that simple agreement I proceed.

"First of all, Ladies, that photo of you together is hot. Turned me int a lesbian there for a minutes. But tell me, you three lovely people, do you get hummingbirds at your summer cabins?"

I have no idea if they have summer cabins or not, we just assume it for the sake of discussion. It gets things going and I direct them to hummingbird feeder #6 if they are interested enough to look, and that leads to #5 and #4 and 3 and so on if their interest holds. And that refocusing lets the pressure off the whole baby thing at least for awhile.

That and the bloody marys.

It was a charming little baby bottle. Now it's a cactus. Extremely anti-baby.

Maybe a hedgehog. It did take awhile to form all those thorns.; 10/1/12, 10:57 PM
nightowl said...: What I read is "Lalalalala, I can't hear you talking about Obama lying about Libya, I can't hear you about Obama keeping our soldiers in Afghanistan and tying their hands, I can't hear you when you are discussing the 5 - 6 trillion added to the deficit under Obama."

As much as I enjoy Althouse for good discussion of all things legal, we all have to remember she is someone who hasn't voted for a Republican Presidential nominee since the '70s, if ever. While she is an analytic and thoughtful person, when it comes to Presidential politics she can't bring herself to pull the R lever and will come up with any excuse not to do so.; 10/1/12, 11:03 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: we all have to remember she is someone who hasn't voted for a Republican Presidential nominee since the '70s, if ever.

Actually, if I remember correctly, her story is that she voted for Bush in 04.

I have no reason to disbelieve that.; 10/1/12, 11:05 PM
JohnJ said...: “I took it as her wanting to let people know she makes contributions, that she works, and that she is taking responsibility for her life to the best of her abilities.”

And my guess is that it’s none of that, at least from her perspective.; 10/1/12, 11:15 PM
Aridog said...: Garage Mahal...

My point is who is determining Brittany is part of the 47%. Did Romney say she was?

Brittany said: I have paid $542.72 in federal, FICA, state, and city taxes this year as of August 31st

Specifically has Romney or Obama said anything about taking SSI away, or improving it, vis a vis how much earnings can be made before offset?

If so, links for either one of them, please. That's "rhetorical" because I don't think either of them have said anything about it...and think this letter is a crock of crap contrived on behalf of an snide agenda, not a young woman.; 10/1/12, 11:16 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Romney: Want free stuff? Vote for “the other guy”.; 10/1/12, 11:22 PM
JohnJ said...: “…and (I) think this letter is a crock of crap contrived on behalf of a snide agenda, not a young woman.”

Sic‘im, dog!; 10/1/12, 11:26 PM
Matt said...: Thanks, prof. He's actually a happy 5 year old boy, now. He spends the occasional week in the hospital, and has challenges ahead, but he's doing we'll, all things considered.; 10/1/12, 11:27 PM
Matt said...: Thanks, prof. He's actually a happy 5 year old boy, now. He spends the occasional week in the hospital, and has challenges ahead, but he's doing we'll, all things considered.; 10/1/12, 11:28 PM
gadfly said...: I am male and I vote and I am pissed about the 12.5 million members of the 47% (or whatever the real % is) that are being provided with freeby Obamaphones spending our tax contributions and Chi-Com loans at a rate of $1.6 Billion - on its way to $3.3 Billion in 2014.

As the Manchester, NH Union-Leader points out in an editorial:

The idea that some people receive more from the state than they give to it and therefore vote to keep the gravy train running is neither new nor controversial — nor incorrect. For evidence, see the “Obamaphone” video.; 10/1/12, 11:28 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm a woman and I think that if you don't see the boundless cynicism behind this ploy, you're a complete idiot. Or else you positively enjoy being manipulated.

Dr. Weevil wrote:

Doesn't this latest Obama ad do pretty much the exact opposite, associating having a very low IQ with voting for Obama, as if the two naturally go together, and isn't that a problem?

No, these ad is about appealing to women who are soft in both heart and head, so they can reassure themselves that, yes, the Dems are much nicer and more caring than that mean old daddy party. Despite the fact that the Dems also favor leaving babies on tables to die...

I thought Althouse was a bit more savvy than your average The View watcher, but I guess not. Well, she has been at pains lately to inform us that logic and reason really are overrated.; 10/1/12, 11:34 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: It almost looks as though Ann when to great pains to be ambiguous, as though she wanted to provoke a reaction from the pro-Romney "side". And if this reaction were ugly toward the woman with Down syndrome, she might then point to it as more evidence that Romney's "side" doesn't deserve her vote, just like she did with the Obamaphone woman.

But the election elects a candidate, not the candidate's voters. As far as Down syndrome goes, if we're going to talk about "sides", then Obama's "side" blew it long ago with Trig Palin.

I don't doubt the authenticity of the letter, by the way. Anyone who's got to know people with Down syndrome know that some of them are high-functioning. There is a student at the university where I teach who has Down syndrome.; 10/1/12, 11:41 PM
furious_a said...: I play the accordion, and I vote.; 10/1/12, 11:43 PM
furious_a said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/1/12, 11:47 PM
Ctmom4 said...: "Here's the trouble for you Republicans, IMO. Ramirez's cartoon is how you most of you guys really do think of the 47% - complete disrespect. Ramirez is a cartoonist so he's off the hook. But if you listen to yourselves day in and day out on Althouse, it's the way most of you think of us.

The problem for you is that attitude then gets easily tied to Romney. And you lose independents and undecideds in droves.

Democrats do it too, but many of your Republicans have raised disrespect to an art level."

Seriously? From a party that labels all conservatives as toothless, racist, homophobic, bible thumpin' rednecks? Does that appeal to independents?; 10/1/12, 11:54 PM
purplepenquin said...: There will be boards to ration care - they already exist.

Yes, they do exist. And they will continue to exist if ObamaCare Part II is passed into law.

Difference being, those boards right now are mostly staffed by heartless accountants whose sole motivation is to generate profit for the stockholders, while if medical care is socialized then those boards will be staffed by bleeding heart social workers that want to expand gov't even more.

Don't get me wrong, I ain't a fan of ObamaCare...been complaining about The Mandate since it was passed into law...but if I ever have to personally face one of those deat, err...rationing panels myself I'd much rather it was staffed with the "lets throw more money at the problem!" hippies rather than the "pinch every penny" number-crunchers.

Tho, that ain't enough to make me vote for Obama...just pointing out that no matter what there are gonna be these rationing boards. Which group of folks would you personally wanna have to face when/if your time comes?; 10/2/12, 12:09 AM
Unknown said...: The Estrogen-American demographic speaks.; 10/2/12, 12:25 AM
Unknown said...: The Estrogen-American demographic speaks.; 10/2/12, 12:25 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: By George, I've held my tongue enough.

And by George, I mean The Seekers Georgy Gi'l.

Also, a Mr. Chip Ahoy, esquire I presume or proclaim as is appropriate, has not superseded Iowahawk ... yet.; 10/2/12, 12:29 AM
Carnifex said...: Dear Ann Althouse,

I am a deaf, mute, and blind dead baby who has voted for democratic in every election these past 12 years. I know it was tough for my mom to have me aborted, but thankfully, the school she was attending drove her to the PP clinic to have me aborted without my grandparents notification, let alone consent.

I just wanted to thank Pres. Obama, and all the other democrats for allowing me to be killed so that my mom could go to her prom without the embarassing baby bump.
At last years prom, Suzy Johnson had her baby in the bathroom, and stuffed it down the trash, and then acted like she went on an incredible diet while she was in the bathroom. But everyone knew what happened, and she was totally humiliated...for about 5 minutes, but then she got voted most likely to have a baby in a bathroom, and we all had a good laugh. Well I didn't, I wasn't conceived yet.

If only more people could see and feel the inherent goodness of not wasting time and resources on someone who will just live in the 47% that the Republicans hate. Why do they hate us so much?

I had the help of my mom and her good friend David Axlerod in writing this letter...because I'm dead and all. Chris Stevens sends his love to Obama, and says it was totally worth being raped,and then killed by angry protesters who were not Muslim, because he got to work for President Obama. And he also says that it was totally the video, and not terrorists. And definitely NOT Muslims. Not Muslims.

So in closing, I'd like to assure everyone that the president does have our dead votes locked up. And that we look forward to voting for Hillary in 2016, when it's her turn. Or maybe Michelle...Yeah...Michelle in 2016!; 10/2/12, 12:35 AM
bagoh20 said...: Just remember who it is who actually does take care of the Brittanies. It's not the 47% who don't even pay their own way. That's right. While you are bathing in the glow of the righteousness of being one with the Brittanies, know that you are doing nothing to help her, and the hated 1% are doing the most for her. The same evil bastards that pay your federal bill too, without so much as a thank you in return. But you liberals are so self-satisfied lying under the mid-day sun cursing it for being so fickle with it's warmth.; 10/2/12, 12:54 AM
bgates said...: Democrats do it too, but many of your Republicans have raised disrespect to an art level.

Which Republicans? The ones who are goin' put y'all back in chains? The ones who sit back and watch Obama and Pelosi with their mop cleaning up someone else's mess, and say "You're not mopping fast enough, that's a socialist mop"? The Republicans who drove the country into a ditch, and now stand around with their slurpees while Obama does all the work? Those aren't real Republicans. Those straw men exist only in the cheap grade school level insults and disrespectful rhetoric that comes directly from Obama and his bumbling sidekick, Joe "Sheriff Big F'n Gravitas" Biden.; 10/2/12, 12:58 AM
Baron Zemo said...: I thought that Brittany had a job?

Isn't she a judge on the X-Factor?; 10/2/12, 1:01 AM
Baron Zemo said...: I thought that Brittany had a job?

Isn't she a judge on the X-Factor?; 10/2/12, 1:01 AM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @purplepenguin:rationing panels myself I'd much rather it was staffed with the "lets throw more money at the problem!" hippies rather than the "pinch every penny" number-crunchers.

They will be staffed by penny-pinching number crunchers, because there's not enough money to give everybody everything they could possibly want. It's playing out in Europe this way. Infants with birth defects and elderly with no relatives are the first. Unpopular lifestyle choices such as obesity and smoking are next.

This is not considered euthanasia, since very young, severely disabled children, or babies with hardly a chance of survival, cannot ask for an end to their lives, or give permission for it. But this form of merciful death does exist, and is referred to as 'life-ending action without the express wish of the patient'. Doctors and parents decide jointly not to begin medical treatment, or to discontinue one, if it is deemed pointless, or because the situation lacks any hope of improvement.; 10/2/12, 1:08 AM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @purple penguin:More compassionate hippies at work:

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in its submission, recommended that a public debate be started around the options of "non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia" for "the sickest of newborns".[8] The College stated that there should be discussion over whether "deliberate intervention" to cause death in severely disabled newborn babies should be legalised; it stated that while it was not necessarily in favour of the move, it felt the issues should be debated. The College stated in this submission that having these options would save some families from years of emotional and financial suffering; it might also reduce the number of late abortions, "as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome".[8] In response to this proposal, Pieter Sauer, a senior paediatrician in the Netherlands, argued that British neonatologists already perform "mercy killings" and should be allowed to do so openly.[8]; 10/2/12, 1:11 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Were one to say "your process is fucked so what I do isn't rape" how could an honest attorney respond?

Not a naive attorney mind you.; 10/2/12, 1:18 AM
Rosalyn C. said...: Most of my life long friends are on the Left, to some extent typical liberals and I am amazed how strongly certain emotions like sympathy play a central position in their political opinions and choices. I mean they virtually have a need to feel a sense of pity for disadvantaged people or righteousness against the corporate world in order to feel OK about themselves. I think that might be the point Professor Althouse is making here.; 10/2/12, 1:26 AM
Carnifex said...: Democrats do it too, but many of your Republicans have raised disrespect to an art level.

You know, when you're right you're right, and you my friend are so very right about this...at least as far as it concerns me.

I've got 2 talents,(three if you ask my wife). 1 is carpentry. I am a whiz bang at carpentry. I can build a house from the ground up, and everything in it.

My other talent is ridicule. I am a smartass born and bred. I have literally made men weep at my smartassery. Got so damned mad they were actually crying. I think it's time to bust out the big guns. Time to lower the BOOM. BOOM gies the dynamite! This is a BOOM stick, or schtick as the case may be, and the casing sez it's a 10 guage 3 1/2 in/ magnum. NO! That ain't big enough, we're gonna' dial it up 1 more like the speakers of Spinal Tap to an 11!! 220...221, what ever it takes!!!

Just remember...

We didn't build that. Somebody else had a hand in it.

THE MEME; 10/2/12, 1:29 AM
MayBee said...: Jeryl Bier, who first noticed that and wrote about it, has an excellent blog.

Speak With Authority; 10/2/12, 1:49 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: As Beethoven spread his sperm, not in privacy, Mozart concurred.

They knew the greatest song ever and wished it were there's yet understood why Gram is better.

Laddies and Gents, I hereby present the single greatest song ever and ever possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaZeGGYji4; 10/2/12, 2:34 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: As Tupac taught me, better than my UW stint, and "OH SHIT I'MA BOUT TO EXPLODE" stint costs as developing, you had best Buckley>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCVT7tqO-YA; 10/2/12, 2:56 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Mr. Tupac, as I've known and will continue to know, is worthy.

Very much so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCVT7tqO-YA; 10/2/12, 3:21 AM
Dante said...: All right, National Review's The Corner, but I found it deeply affecting. I am a woman, and I vote.

I take Ann's point to mean "I'm trying to explain how a woman would react to this." In it, the implication is that R's, with all their logical thinking, have merely shown that this is not a great way of winning the female emotional vote.

So I think we need to create the life of Frank, Julia's son. Here, Frank is your average schmoe. At his birth, he has a $51K government debt on his head. And as he grows, he enters life into a world of diminished ability to pay off the increasing debt, and gets lucky with Julliete who elects to have his son. But Julliete really doesn't want to be with Frank.

Frank, having no visitation rights, goes from works really hard to falling into alcoholic alcoholic despondency and drugs, and ends up in jail, with a meaningless life, and commits suicide.

Franks son, Jr., is born with a $150K price tag on his head, and decides to make money selling his sperm. He loves his mom. He is blown up in a detachment at some middle east embassy, because free speech in the US has caused understandable hatred for Americans there.; 10/2/12, 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...: This is disingenuous. Democrats are the abortion party and only pretend to care about Down's kids, or anyone else for that matter. 95% of Downs kids don't make it out of the womb because of abortion. Brittany is a just a vehicle to power; a device to illicit your sympathy. She'll be used to push your buttons and then disposed of when inconvenient. Don't fall for it.; 10/2/12, 6:36 AM
Dante said...: While you are bathing in the glow of the righteousness of being one with the Brittanies, know that you are doing nothing to help her, and the hated 1% are doing the most for her.

I don't know how the bottom half pay taxes, but social security is a 14.3% bite out of every worker's paycheck. Meanwhile, including social security, the top 400 earners paid 17% of their income in taxes. And the highest tax rate is married filing jointly earning $108K each, no deductions (which are generally other taxes anyway). And that comes in at a whopping 35% of gross.

And that is adjusted to remove the 50 cents on the real dollar they get back from their social security "investment."

And this does not include the many regressive taxes added in for sales tax, for taxes on phones, for taxes on energy bills, all for redistribution for government purposes.

In my view, the very wealthy (I'm not including you) get a net return on their government investment. 17% seems like a pretty small number given the US has opened up the world for trade, which the ownership class benefits from.; 10/2/12, 6:40 AM
Russell said...: "All right, National Review's The Corner, but I found it deeply affecting. I am a woman, and I vote."

So, file under the most disappointing post ever by Professor Althouse. The statement quoted above basically says "I don't care about the facts, I'm going with the emotional pull as will other women." This tells you why Democrats win so many elections and why many Democrats, who bill themselves as intellectuals (just ask them!), are not nearly as interested in the intellectual pursuit of facts as they would piously lead you to believe. Another reminder that we, as a country, are probably f*****.

Very disappointing to hear it come from a blogger and professor who is otherwise enjoyably rational, cynical and contrarian.; 10/2/12, 6:59 AM
Russell said...: "All right, National Review's The Corner, but I found it deeply affecting. I am a woman, and I vote."

So, file under the most disappointing post ever by Professor Althouse. The statement quoted above basically says "I don't care about the facts, I'm going with the emotional pull as will other women." This tells you why Democrats win so many elections and why many Democrats, who bill themselves as intellectuals (just ask them!), are not nearly as interested in the intellectual pursuit of facts as they would piously lead you to believe. Another reminder that we, as a country, are probably f*****.

Very disappointing to hear it come from a blogger and professor who is otherwise enjoyably rational, cynical and contrarian.; 10/2/12, 7:01 AM
MayBee said...: I take Ann's point to mean "I'm trying to explain how a woman would react to this."

She is certainly qualified to explain how a woman- herself- would react to this. But women are kind of like people in that we react in all different kind of ways to things.; 10/2/12, 7:17 AM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: I find it interesting that a large majority of the comments at the president's site are quite negative about this Brittney thing and about the president in general. There's one or two stalwart defenders, but other than that, it's all criticism.; 10/2/12, 7:27 AM
Colonel Angus said...: I didn't see anything in the letter stating Romney would harm her. I took it as her wanting to let people know she makes contibutions, that she works, and that she is taking responsibility for her life to the best of her abilities. Contra Romney's remarks about the 47% that she is part of.

Why does she place herself in the 47%? It would appear she takes responsibility for herself and pays taxes.; 10/2/12, 7:39 AM
LilyBart said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/2/12, 7:52 AM
Colonel Angus said...: I don't know how the bottom half pay taxes, but social security is a 14.3% bite out of every worker's paycheck.

No. SS is 4.2% for the employee. Employer pays an additional 6.2%.

Self employed pay 10.4%.; 10/2/12, 7:54 AM
LilyBart said...: In my view, the very wealthy (I'm not including you) get a net return on their government investment. 17% seems like a pretty small number given the US has opened up the world for trade, which the ownership class benefits from.

Ah, the 'you didn't build it' argument. From which naturally flows the "so hand over your money to us because it really belongs to us" argument.

In absolute dollars, the 1% (or maybe better to say the top 5%-10%) pretty much does fund the government. While the SS tax seems high for lower income earners, the money is transferred to SS recipients. It is not (supposed to be) general fund money. And, provided they don’t die early, lower income earners generally do receive more in benefits that they've paid in.

The government did not create our success. We created government to provide stability and laws, etc., as tool to get on with our lives successfully. And we funded this government with our hard earned dollars.

You make a dangerous argument. You take a few facts and distort them.

We are $16 trillion in debt. Raising taxes on the 1% or the top 5% is NOT going to fix this. But you've convinced yourself that my money is really YOUR money. How can this not lead to abuse?; 10/2/12, 7:56 AM
cubanbob said...: Too bad Brittany isn't the Vice President. She certainly is more articulate than Joe Biden and a more productive member of society than either Obama or Biden.

As for the 47%, it hits a nerve because its true. Democrats are always saying how patriotic it is to pay taxes, taxes used to fund such important things like cell phones for slugs, luxury vacations in Hawaii for judges, parties for GSA drones in Vegas, bailouts for the UAW, Solyndra and other crony capitalism to name but a few. Its amazing just how little benefit taxpayers actually get for their money, the money is spent mostly for things that provide no benefit to those who actually pay taxes.; 10/2/12, 7:57 AM
cubanbob said...: Too bad Brittany isn't the Vice President. She certainly is more articulate than Joe Biden and a more productive member of society than either Obama or Biden.

As for the 47%, it hits a nerve because its true. Democrats are always saying how patriotic it is to pay taxes, taxes used to fund such important things like cell phones for slugs, luxury vacations in Hawaii for judges, parties for GSA drones in Vegas, bailouts for the UAW, Solyndra and other crony capitalism to name but a few. Its amazing just how little benefit taxpayers actually get for their money, the money is spent mostly for things that provide no benefit to those who actually pay taxes.; 10/2/12, 7:57 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Democrats do it too, but many of your Republicans have raised disrespect to an art level."

-- I'm pretty sure making a movie about killing a sitting president is a kind of art and a kind of level.; 10/2/12, 7:58 AM
Colonel Angus said...: We are $16 trillion in debt. Raising taxes on the 1% or the top 10% is NOT going to fix this.

Barring a massive tax increase across the board or another 90s style economic boom, its mathematically impossible to reign in the national debt even allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.; 10/2/12, 7:58 AM
sakredkow said...: If your gender has anything to do with your vote, you need to rethink things.

Sure, why shouldn't moderates and undecideds accept being told what we're allowed to factor into our votes?; 10/2/12, 8:09 AM
Emery Calame said...: " Me too I'm Spartacus. And ME and ME.

Well, you get the idea. "

All those Spartacus folks got crucified. Slavery continued in Rome for another 480 years uninterrupted. And it's not like it ended with Alaric's rebellion either.; 10/2/12, 8:16 AM
sakredkow said...: I'm a woman and I think that if you don't see the boundless cynicism behind this ploy, you're a complete idiot. Or else you positively enjoy being manipulated.

Even if I were to believe this is cynical ploy, even if I thought like some of you it was entirely made up and even the picture was not of Brittany, which I don't, I don't think it would match the cynicism expressed by Republicans in this thread. You should give a sober reading to yourselves. No matter what you have on the plus side, you don't look like a winning team. I'm sorry for Romney.; 10/2/12, 8:18 AM
Emery Calame said...: "Sure, why shouldn't moderates and undecideds accept being told what we're allowed to factor into our votes?"

How do you propose to insulate yourself from criticism when announcing your lack of plans openly in blog posts? Do you suppose blanket accusations of temerity cast at those who dare command you will accomplish much?; 10/2/12, 8:19 AM
Synova said...: "Hello. My name is Chip Ahoy and I am part of Romney's 47%. I cannot help myself for I have Down syndrome which forces me to be acutely aware of politics and to focus on Democratic talking points and express them articulately wherever possible..."

Nothing wrong with getting someone to write it for you, of course, but the "acutely aware of politics and Democratic talking points" combined with better English skills than my fellow university students is a bit hard to believe.; 10/2/12, 8:19 AM
Synova said...: "Sure, why shouldn't moderates and undecideds accept being told what we're allowed to factor into our votes?"

Why limit it to moderates and undecideds? Some of us have been trying to point out the factors that Democrats demand determine your votes and "self interest" for years.

Not that it does any good.; 10/2/12, 8:21 AM
Colonel Angus said...: No matter what you have on the plus side, you don't look like a winning team. I'm sorry for Romney.

Can you provide me with one reason Obama deserves my vote? Appeal to my reason and logic because that is what guides my vote, not make believe ads that read like after school specials.; 10/2/12, 8:23 AM
dbp said...: When it comes to emotional pull, Althouse is repelled by emotional offerings from the right and attracted by the same kind of offerings from the left. Did we see her swing right in response to a film which show poor white Republicans in a way meant to demean and marginalize them to cultural elites? The question answers itself.; 10/2/12, 8:25 AM
Colonel Angus said...: even if I thought like some of you it was entirely made up and even the picture was not of Brittany, which I don't,..

I suppose my cynicism is justified by the fact this administration has lied about so much I just reflexively disbelieve everything he says.

It's not unlike a previous ad with Republican women for Obama who turned out to be registered Democrats.; 10/2/12, 8:28 AM
Peter said...: "I don't know when retard started being an unacceptable word.

Apparently "mentally retarded" got replaced by "mentally handicapped." Which is unfortunate, as the latter implies the possibility of a behavioral disorder and not merely a deficit in cognitive ability.

And "mentally handicapped" won't last long either, as it's sure to be replaced by something like "person with mental disability."

It's just a pain to keep up with PC language. Since the purpose of PC talk is invariably to hide some unpleasant truth, it quickly slides into sarcasm and worse (who really wants to be called "special" anymore?) and thus needs to be replaced with a new-new verson.

As for 'Brittany,' if she's truly mentally handicapped then it would be best if she does not help decide who shall be the next president of the United States. And if she's not so handicapped, then the poignancy of her plea- however manipulated- is not relevent.; 10/2/12, 8:49 AM
Known Unknown said...: We are so fucked as a country.

Seriously.; 10/2/12, 9:15 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Bagoh said..
Just remember who it is who actually does take care of the Brittanies. It's not the 47% who don't even pay their own way. That's right. While you are bathing in the glow of the righteousness of being one with the Brittanies, know that you are doing nothing to help her, and the hated 1% are doing the most for her. The same evil bastards that pay your federal bill too, without so much as a thank you in return.

Tax payers are never thanked. They are instead vilified and abused.; 10/2/12, 9:17 AM
Aridog said...: Well, I'll be damned; @Garage may be right(it has happened) that I miss stuff, don't read stuff,...it's also happened, but not because I didn't try.

See, I missed Jeryl Bier's blog, "Speak With Authority" until cited by @MayBee. Bier's blog cites, with link, the original publisher of the Brittany letter, and it is the Obama/Biden campaign.

Oh, wait...Ann Althouse didn't cite or link to either Bier or the O/B campaign publication, but to a nominally conservative third party source reporting and opining on it. Am I remiss for not immediately Googling the Althouse citation for corroborating evidence? Apparently so. I won't make that mistake again.

Let's be honest, how many of you all here noticed the original publisher of the letter before @Maybee cited it? From the content of this thread, I'm guessing not many...but I could be wrong again.

One thing is certain, the "so much that is heinous about Brittany being used for political gain" in the headline, enclosed in quotes, is the heinous work of the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign.

That, and the whole thing is one more: Oh look, SQUIRREL!!; 10/2/12, 9:31 AM
Aridog said...: Blooger ate a comment, so I'll try again....

@Bagoh2o said: While you are bathing in the glow of the righteousness of being one with the Brittanies ...

Very similar to @CouponMom's point on the Obama-phone thread about being black versus being down with it.

I think both are worthwhile subjects for discussion. I'm not sure we, collectively, progressives and conservatives are capable of it without tainting the conversation with political agenda.

Might be worth a try though...comments?; 10/2/12, 9:43 AM
Christopher in MA said...: I wonder how many pictures of cute girls with Downs were focus group tested before they found the one that would make the biggest emotional connection with women. I am a tiny bit surprised she isn't holding a puppy.

They were probably afraid Obama would want a snack.; 10/2/12, 9:44 AM
Dante said...: I don't know how the bottom half pay taxes, but social security is a 14.3% bite out of every worker's paycheck.

No. SS is 4.2% for the employee. Employer pays an additional 6.2%.

Self employed pay 10.4%.

That's temporary. Ask Bagoh20. When he decides to hire someone, he has to look at the total cost, I'm sure. Every person I've talked to about hiring does this.

The labor of the employee ideally has to be more than the employment cost. I know a guy who used to run a business and who hired people. But the cost of California's disability was so high he was losing money. He is now the only employee in his business.

It's the employee's labor paying for it.; 10/2/12, 9:56 AM
Aridog said...: Dante said...

I take Ann's point to mean "I'm trying to explain how a woman would react to this." In it, the implication is that R's, with all their logical thinking, have merely shown that this is not a great way of winning the female emotional vote.

Only problem is that it wasn't/isn't the Republicans who were using this letter to influence votes.

If you mean that Althouse meant to *merely* illuminate that, fine...but for someone normally erudite, this post was/is pathetic. A third party report rather than a direct attribution. Please.; 10/2/12, 9:57 AM
Dante said...: We are $16 trillion in debt. Raising taxes on the 1% or the top 10% is NOT going to fix this.

I have to admit, I don't understand all this business. But let me take a moment to explain why.

There is a concept called "money velocity." When money flows around and around, with purchases, money is doing something, and the government gets to tax it. In my suspicion, the stimulus failed because money isn't moving around.

I read uSoft is sitting on Billions of dollars, doing very little. If money is sitting in banks, doing nothing, money flows are screwed up.

Now, we can all talk about opportunity costs, we can all talk about how Welfare recipients aren't adding goods and services into the system. But guess what, right now people aren't buying things. And while people don't get to keep their money, at least the welfare recipients are adding to commerce by buying Obama phones.

When the US has a massive trade imbalance, that sucks dollars out of circulation.

So I'm all for this quantitative easing. Keep on pushing more dollars in until they become less valuable than actually hiring people. Sure, it sucks for the people who own dollars, including the Chinese and most of the world, but the path we are on is pretty damn bad.; 10/2/12, 10:12 AM
Dante said...: Only problem is that it wasn't/isn't the Republicans who were using this letter to influence votes.

Maybe I misread the whole thing. Let's see.

Oh, they are responding to a note from Brittany on the Obama/Biden website, entitled "Brittany: “A face of one of the 47%”". The purpose is to make R's seem uncaring about the 47%. The National Review online is an analytic rejoinder.

So I think Ann is saying "Look at those D's getting the woman's vote, and those R's using logic. It doesn't work for everywoman."

Now, Ann has the habit of being vague in a lot of her notes, presumably to elicit original discussion, and that's my analysis of her point.

Maybe I'm completely in the weeds: I have no idea.; 10/2/12, 10:18 AM
Aridog said...: Dante said...

It's the employee's labor paying for it. [payroll taxes and other direct payroll costs]

Absolutely correct.

If you cannot earn enough revenue for the labor direct costs you pay for, you either terminate the labor or go bankrupt shortly.

Even the federal government realizes this feature. As a "fed" I had to calculate wages and salary as hourly labor with a direct cost of approximately $1.25 for every $1.00 of employee pay.

That includes only the direct payroll costs, like SSA & Medicare, Unemployment Ins., Workman's Comp Ins., anticipated sick days, known vacation days, etc. Not included are the administrative costs to track all of it, nor the facility and equipment costs applicable to each employee.

We "Feds" did it every year for the "Budget" that Obama-Gov and the no-nuts Senate no longer uses. However, miss your April deadline for submission for your budget component and prepare to look for new work.

Working in private sector skilled trades and later managing one outfit, I know the facility and equipment costs can be huge and are the capitalized "investment" part of hiring people. The gamble. That also applies in government.

BTW...the $1.25 figure is actually less than the actual cost, but I'm not about to invite FOUO (For Official Use Only) and NFD (Not for Dissemination) federal issues.; 10/2/12, 10:31 AM
Big Mike said...: If it was up to Obama and his coterie of hard-core liberals, Brittany would never have written her letter. She'd have been aborted.; 10/2/12, 10:31 AM
Aridog said...: Dante... Maybe I'm completely in the weeds: I have no idea.

The simple fact we're having this little conversation says we're both in the weeds with no idea. I presume it's a game where we were required to click on the O/B link in the cited third party opinion reference.

AS I said earlier ...oh, look...SQUIRREL!

Nothing more.; 10/2/12, 10:39 AM
Dante said...: Aridog:

My complaint is the middle class is bearing the brunt of all this taxation. Democrats claim they are for the middle class, but tax the crap out of them, making it difficult to accrue wealth, and impeding upward mobility.

Meanwhile, to me common sense states that the income rich ought to pay at least the highest rate of any other lower earning tax group, yet two earners making $108K in 2010 could pay up to 35% of their gross income, and that's after subtracting off what they might get back in social security.

So perhaps getting a bit more out of the wealthy would help to move money around the system. I realize that's a very unpopular idea to many, but I don't understand how people earning less can be expected to pay a greater share of the welfare burden.

And in recent years, Social Security is becoming increasingly a welfare program. Hey, it has money, let's raid it.; 10/2/12, 10:44 AM
Dante said...: AS I said earlier ...oh, look...SQUIRREL!

Nothing more.

I disagree. To Ann's credit, she is pointing out how the Dems are getting the "emotional" vote from women.

My response is to paint the future picture of what these emotional responses are going to do to their kids. Oh, inelegantly, for sure, but that's the idea.

Throwing out numbers like "16 Trillion" doesn't mean a thing. I can't even understand a billion, let alone a trillion. It's just a number.

Make it real. This is what the path means for YOUR kids. Women care deeply about kids, and in fundamental ways that, at lest in my household, are different than the way I think of them.; 10/2/12, 10:47 AM
Dante said...: P.S. Love the Squirrel note. I saw "UP" with my kids. Hysterical, and appropriate.

If there were a real press out there, this would be a different world.; 10/2/12, 10:50 AM
Aridog said...: Dante....To Ann's credit, she is pointing out how the Dems are getting the "emotional" vote from women.

Implication that the impact includes her, too? You tell me.

Much as I want to agree with you on this, I can't. A good subject was distorted and wrecked for discussion by vague presentation.

I may be messing the "entertainment value" as presented.; 10/2/12, 10:55 AM
Dante said...: Implication that the impact includes her, too? You tell me.

Could be. I prefer to think that Ann writes a lot. She didn't exactly say how this would sway her vote, but merely that as a woman she is susceptible, and as a woman she doesn't find the rejoinder compelling.

Again, my read. Maybe she will let us know. But, she is also in the middle of this "Don't you dare tell ME how to vote" thing.; 10/2/12, 11:17 AM
Aridog said...: Dante....Could be. I prefer to think that Ann writes a lot. She didn't exactly say how this would sway her ...

Frequently a problem for lawyers, yes? One of my best friends for decades went from cop to lawyer...and there are times I wish to strangle his insouciant yet blithering ass. :-)); 10/2/12, 11:38 AM
TexasVoter said...: I have a child with special needs and I find this DEPLORABLE! Why won't the president run on his RECORD! This woman shouldn't have been used in this way. This is why I don't even follow the campaign ads because they insult my intelligence. Obama voted against a bill that would provide help for little babies who survived abortion. It was the left who aimed all of their partisan anger at a little baby! They sent Trig mother death threats and said he should have been aborted. So now they want to pretend to be the defender of the disabled?

Anyone who LISTENED to the 47% video knows Romney was talking about election strategy. Obama and Romney BOTH have a base that will NOT vote for the other guy for a variety of reasons. There is NOTHING that this president can do to earn my vote, so why would he plan a campaign around begging for my vote? If Rush Limbaugh turns you off from Romney your vote was never in play for him. In "What's the Matter with Kansas" we were told we were voting against our own interests, but how dare someone tell me what my interests are? Why should I begrudge another American citizen for having more money than I do?

@Lem
I hope Althouse is trolling us. Or maybe she is purging all the "baggers" from her blog. I don't know.; 10/2/12, 12:46 PM
Dante said...: Frequently a problem for lawyers, yes?

Or maybe this is just a woman thing.

From As Good as it Gets:

"How do you write women so well?"

"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."; 10/2/12, 12:48 PM
Saint Croix said...: The baby murdered in Carhart II was a baby with Down's.; 10/2/12, 2:07 PM
Aridog said...: Saint Croix...

Good link vis a vis human emotions, to wit...an attending nurse's description of a 26th week fetal euthanizing:

“ ‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .

“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

“ ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .

Question (because I do not know, really):

Do fetus infants feel pain? How do we know?

I'm not a very religious guy, and I've been in circumstances where I very likely killed people, though it's not something I talk about, nor do many veterans. I loose little sleep.

Reading that nurse's description makes me feel to vomit...and had I witnessed it I'd likely never sleep peacefully again. Or worse, I might have taken action to prevent it, or bring vengeance for it. It is difficult to explain how violent vengeance can make a soul serene once again.; 10/2/12, 5:15 PM
Aridog said...: Dante said...

"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

I shall resist the temptation to assign a name to such a character here, but it is a woman, and not the hostess.; 10/2/12, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: It looks like Ann Althouse is channelling Helen Reddy and Charles Johnson at the same time.; 10/2/12, 11:53 PM