"When she ran unsuccessfully against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2010, she was a moderate, pro-business Republican. That erstwhile profile would get her nowhere in this year’s presidential race, however, when everyone is scrambling to get to the right of everyone else and 'moderate' is a dirty word. One has to wonder if the showy posture of ultraconservative anger isn’t the biggest lie of all."
Writes Eugene Robinson.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton is watching Fiorina's rise and trying to learn something about how a woman can present herself in an exciting, compelling way. Robinson, I suspect, would only like to say that it's those terrible Republicans who respond to anger, but Democrats are responding to Bernie Sanders and he always sounds and looks angry. (Take any video of him, pause it randomly and repeatedly, and marvel or giggle at how every freeze frame is another angry face.)
And on "Meet the Press" the other day, when asked whether Hillary Clinton is "in tune with the mood of the electorate," Andrea Mitchell said no, because "She's not angry enough." Mitchell seemed to think it would be too hard for Hillary to feed the hunger for rage: "[I]t's hard for her to be angry because then you've got, you know, Donald Trump saying, 'She's shrill,' which is a sexist word, let's face it. But she has to get around that. But the anger, the passion is all on people going on the attack, whether it's, you know, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's Carly Fiorina, or whether it's Bernie Sanders."
If Carly can do it, why not Hillary? Carly undermines that pro-Hillary sexism argument, that if Hillary displays emotion, she'll be judged according to standards that are only imposed on women. There are reasons for a candidate to eschew the anger mode, but Carly makes it harder for Hillary to claim she must be flat and bland lest people see her as a screeching harridan.
२९ सप्टेंबर, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
The left only thinks it is anger motivating Carly. She had to show a "moderate" image in California to have any chance and even that was too conservative for the idiots that vote here.
She is showing cool competence and they are unfamiliar with that. She has dealt with conference calls with investors and board members. Most of the people who forced her out at HP either regret it or are gone.
Romney was too nice a guy and was savaged by people with no scruples or morals. She has dealt with unfriendly types for years. She knows how to do it and it not afraid of them
Men are firm and direct, great leaders by addressing issues boldly!
Women are filled with rage, filled with anger! They and their showy postures.
Rather sexist commentary there.
When she ran unsuccessfully against Boxer, she didn't have a clear message nor had a firm statement of why she should be elected. It was a rookie campaign.
The question is whether Carly is lying about her current positions. Lying is a benefit for Democrats, people want that, love that about them. Obama was dreamy because all the cool kids knew he was lying about his social positions back in 2008.
If Carly can do it, why not Hillary?
Because Carly is not yet menopausal.
Hillary needs to find a way to co-opt and exploit the caregiver/grandmother archetype.
The "pro-Hillary sexism argument"--the idea that any given shot at Hillary is really a shot at her because she's a woman--was always hollow, and used as an excuse to cover up for Hillary Clinton's profound defects as a candidate, officeholder and all around person. It doesn't serve the Clintonistas well, either, because it's such a lazy fallback it prevents them from truly acknowledging (and perhaps dealing with) her weaknesses.
Voters are fine with strong, assertive women--when those women are saying what they agree with. Voters also like strong, assertive men. But if you're faking it, poorly--well, no one likes that. If Carly is faking it then she's doing a good job at it. Hillary simply does not have that gift.
Also, there is a difference between being assertive and being a jerk. An assertive person does not have to overplay their hand, and try to prove something--their inner confidence can shine through. A jerk is generally insecure and must browbeat, as though they are saying in their head "now be assertive here."
Anger is a bipartisan thing now--and there is much to be angry about (though to be fair, not as much as there was in 2008 when the economy was tanking hard). The question is how the anger should be channeled.
Andrea Mitchell needs to retire. I doubt she needs the money.
Nice guys finish last in elections. We have seen that in the last two. McCain and Romney tried to play nice. They were gentlemen at heart and presented themselves that way. It does not work with our current electorate.
I didn't take Carly seriously up till now, but am becoming interested. I like her unflappable nature. Whereas I can't stand Obama's cool demeanor. Funny, that.
The Dems should beware of the Queen of Shades.
Neither Hillary or Carly strike me as angry, and I'm not convinced that most voters are looking for anger exactly. Certain people may be I guess, which explains Trump and Sanders, but anger absent reason is impotant and I'd like to believe that a majority of voters understand that.
Mitchell seemed to think it would be too hard for Hillary to feed the hunger for rage: "[I]t's hard for her to be angry because then you've got, you know, Donald Trump saying, 'She's shrill,' which is a sexist word, let's face it.
That Andrea Mitchell is stupid. Hillary can't feed the anger because she would suffer the wrath of Obama and his minions and she already does without saying anything adverse about Obama administration. This is also the reason Trump picked Republican party to run on instead of the Dems. He could not have got them riled up against Obama.
You pose this as a marketing question. Does Fiorina's shrill anger work, and if so, why couldn't it work for Hillary Clinton?
"Screeching harridan" has a micro-aggression taint (oops). Clinton comes across that way, much as Jeb Bush's father came across as once described as a guy born with a silver foot in his mouth.
But Hillary is a screeching harridan. She talked of a vast, right-wing conspiracy. She talked of the politics of meaning, and of her listening tour, and against the politics of personal destruction, and of transparency, and other things that she, Hillary Clinton, has been the poster harridan for. She said she was broke when she left the White House. She talks of helping the poor while charging a quarter million per speech.
She's a lying asshole, and if she rears up and screeches, we'll all say, well, that's who she is. It's what she does. Even leftists know that.
When a woman is angry because too many innocent children are being slaughtered, she looks like a courageous Joan of Arc type, and people like her.
When a woman is angry because people are trying to stop the killing of innocent people, she seems shrill, and witch-like. More of a Baba Yaga character.
Hillary! is shrill because she's on the wrong side of history, and yet she keeps advocating for more and better child-slaughter.
I've met Carly twice in person. She is nice as pie.
Try this: She displays the emotions that are appropriate for the situation with the addition that she is a politician. If a normal person was tailgating at a college football game and got pelted with condoms by strangers, a non- politician would get angry. Carly, on the other hand, handled the assault with aplomb. I want to know why the Iowa City police didn't protect her better and arrest the paid Planned Parenthood stooges?
Bob Ellison:
Hillary is more than a harridan. She's the most successful criminal in the history of the United States.
"Because Carly is not yet menopausal."
Actually she is and that is not the reason why Hillary is such a lying bitch. She was when she was a young Watergate Committee staffer and was fired for lying.
"She's the most successful criminal in the history of the United States."
I'd rank Bill above her but she's close.
Wow! Andrea Mitchell and Eugene Robinson cited in one post. Is that some kind of record?
You can be angry about things that people are OK with you being angry about.
Clinton defaults to angry too frequently and never balances it. I don't think we'll ever see Clinton on Buzzfeed or wherever Fiorina put her video about women in the workplace and have it come off as natural.
Andrea Mitchell always gets confused and befuddled whenever she is called upon to act as a real journalist, with a veneer of impartiality. That's just not something she does well.
Anger is the most authentic human emotion, and only authentic persons need apply this year. We have watche our country fed feet first into a wood shredder by the Liar of All Time named Obama.
As for Fiorina, she is the consumate actress who has indeed learned to fake sincereity with a seductive wiggle and a wink.
Trump is actually too proud of a man to fake another persona. He likes his own.
Hillary doesn't have any principles, so it's hard for her to work herself up.
Amy,
"Whereas I can't stand Obama's cool demeanor"
Obama is smug. Fiorina isn't.
"I wonder if Hillary Clinton is watching Fiorina's rise and trying to learn something about how a woman can present herself in an exciting, compelling way."
Umm, no. A little late for grandma to learn new tricks.
If she's gonna make it, it'll have to be under the protection of hacks like Robinson and Mitchell and Todd, and with wavering law profs across the land deciding that the GOP "lost me" for some reason or other.
Andrea must keep working to pay for that face lift. What is it now ? Six ?
Am I the only person bored by this abortion video controversy? How many wagons have to be circled before we can move on?
This is why I've almost given up on reading anything about politics this season. All the rage is on the part of those that project it. Why is Eugene Robinson so mad?
Eugene Robinson is mad because of the racism that has prevented him from being a rich columnist.
Oh, well....
" . . . she'll be judged according to standards that are only imposed on women."
By whom? Does it ever enter the mind of any feminist that sometimes men are judged by standards that are only imposed on men? Stop whining.
Why do so many bourgeois feminist women have daddy issues that they need everyone else ON THE PLANET to cater to? Is this the reason so many of them feel a kinship with Hillary?
Oh yeah Hillary's watching and hating life too. What else is Carly doing/not doing that the Harridan of Foggy Bottom can't?
- Wearing cute, age-appropriate dresses
- Wearing cute, worn-in jeans that are less "Mom-jean-like" than Obama's gay dungarees
- Speaking in clear, precise language with 0% weasel wording
- Not projecting huge chaotic wordclouds intended to obfuscate and elide questions
- Speaking the words "character," "honor" and "morality" without irony but with conviction and purpose, using the language properly to illuminate bring ideas to life
- Growing in popularity the more she is seen and heard by Americans
- Smiling with a warm, natural countenance and sparkling eyes that work in harmony
- When she laughs it's not a cackle, and is not accompanied by a huge over-acted throwing back of her head as if to say "I'm really, really laughing people!"
- She doesn't blame others for her failures and even treats the Hewletts with respect and acknowledges the differences she had with the HP board
- She has a record to run on
- Carly never has to make excuses for an influence peddling, skirt chasing husband
When ever Hillary goes on and on about how women NEED abortion to be successful, what I hear her saying is "I could have been a contender, I could have been somebody, if only Chelsea hadn't ruined my life."
Damn! 61. Now I'm wondering if maybe she's not really an android.
Any anger Hillary shows is in sharp contrast to her public relationship with Bill. It's been 15 years since the end of Bill's presidency. Any sane woman would have distanced herself from that man. You can't come out as "angry", "stern", or "strong and independent" when your still chained to the guy that got a blowey from an intern in the Oval Office as his least irresponsible act of cheating on you. You can't be angry about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" (that was right about the cheating) while you're smiling at public appearances with your cheating spouse.
I'm not saying she needed to divorce him, but I certainly wouldn't start a foundation with both of our names on it. Nor would I have used him as a political prop for years. I'm even thinking Bill was trying to distance himself from Hillary, with his appearances with President G.H.W. Bush. He even named the foundation after himself originally. Adding Hillary (and Chelsea's) name to the foundation was another obvious machination by Hillary to glom onto her (cheating) husband's goodwill. It's some sort of crazy high-school popularity contest logic: People like Bill, if Bill likes Hillary, people will like Hillary!
Bill is likable, as are many people who do wrong or evil things; Hillary is not likable.
But she is still evil.
That is her problem, and soon to be ours.
Hillary can't pass the Voight-Kampff test.
Republican = angry! crazy!
Like clockwork, I tell you.
Eugene Robinson writes about Carly Fiorina the way The Chinese Global Times writes about Hillary Clinton the way Donald Trump talks about Megyn Kelly. Why is he so filled with rage?
Is "rage" a dog-whistle term? Why not?
Anti-WTO protestors and Occupy Wall Street protests rampage through cities, destroying property and making a mess of things in a rageful way, but the Media talks about how important such protests are, how they're pure expressions of the people's will, how they're "mostly peaceful." A TeaParty rally that leaves a park cleaner than it was to begin with is characterized as scary and hate-filled, even when pictures show orderly smiling adults peacefully marching and listening.
Ferguson protestors shout "kill the pigs," throw Molotov cocktails, burn buildings, etc, and the Media talks about their righteous anger and understandable expressions of frustration. Isn't that rage, Eugene?
Violence, rage, eliminationist rhetoric, firearm metaphors--all are ok when used by the Left, but if anyone on the Right is the least bit angry look out!
Anyway, fuck Eugene Robinson's fake diagnosis. There's no lie bigger than the Media double standard he lives.
There's gotta be a meme w/Fiorina making a smug-ish face and the caption "U Mad, Bro?" Get on it, someone.
Yeah Carly, take Leftist Media personality Eugene Robinson's advice and be more like you where in 2010 when you lost an election to a Democrat. Anything else is just to extreme, too angry, too scary and it might hurt the country. You don't want to be accused of being insincere if you have to run against super-sincere salt of the earth Hilary Clinton!
Eugene and the Left care deeply about unifying the country when that pose might harm the Right's interests, but are hyperpartisan when defending causes they actually care about. Listen to his perspective, he's not just some Lefty hack doing his Lefty hack thing!
David Begley said...
I've met Carly twice in person. She is nice as pie.
Try this: She displays the emotions that are appropriate for the situation with the addition that she is a politician.
I have not met her, but I've seen and heard her interviewed many times now, and that is my impression.
The whole rage thing is Robinson projecting.
"The whole rage thing is Robinson projecting."
Rage is only what your opponents do. The guys on your side are displaying righteous emotion.
How many Democrats talk of Bernie Sanders' or Liz Warren's "rage"? Oh, they're just happy warriors, those two.
On a regular basis, Eugene Robinson writes a column that proves his mother raised at least one idiot. Since I don't know whether Eugene had any brothers or sisters, I guess he's the one!
Robinson is seething with self-loathing likely due to the abject failure of the Obama administration and strikes out.
I'm not getting rage out of Fiorina, to be honest.
Nor do I with Hillary, but that is because her mood module has been on the fritz for a while. She needs an upgrade to Emotion 2.1 to really seem human-ish.
I want to know why the Iowa City police didn't protect her better and arrest the paid Planned Parenthood stooges?
The lack of arrests seems odd. It IS assault, after all.
And I've never heard Fiorina come out against birth control --- well, except for abortion which is birth control for too many women.
When they can't out smart you, out debate you, they will say you are full of rage, meaning you are ready to chill in the loony bin, to shut you up.
It's their standard procedure, right from Mao's playbook when he purged the incorrigible intellectuals.
They are trying that on Carly.
Then they will accuse the good Dr. of lacking the fire to win.
The only candidate who deserves the WH is one who has the proper amount of fire to win, who is not in a rage. Oh, mine, Hillary is the perfect candidate. What luck we have!
Tank:
She is better in person than on TV. If you live in WI, drive down to Iowa to see her if you can.
@Dave
Iowa is a bit of a drive from here in northern NJ ;-)
I don't often go to hear/meet candidates, but I might for her, in NJ.
I supported her in California against Boxer but her campaign was not very professional and she wasted a lot of credibility in the primary where some consultant developed a creepy TV ad that was directed at Tom Campbell, the RINO favorite.
She is a much better candidate now.
"except for abortion which is birth control for too many women."
In the last two election cycles, and so far during this season, I have discussed politics with (or overheard conversations with) women I would otherwise characterize as mature, intelligent, analytical, business-like, etc. In an alarming number of cases, they spontaneously stated outright that they would not vote for a Republican POTUS more or less solely because of the threat to abortion rights that they think would result.
Now, this is CA, more or less a write-off in the electoral college for any Republican candidate, so maybe it doesn't really matter much. But judging from the tone of the conversations and the flashes of anger/panic in their eyes I've noted, I think that if any one issue can derail Fiorina nationally, this is it.
Hi Fred. Fellow California here. Maybe I move in a morre conservative group but I don't hear that antipathy to Fiorina or her position on abortion. Dems will always scare monger and cry about the sky falling, but the truth is that close to 80% of Americans are opposed to late term abortion. THAT is the only viable change being discussed, reducing the time period in which abortions could be performed. (Personally I feel that if you can't make up your mind in 20 to 22 weeks, WTF?)
Anyway, your comment caused me to contemplate the vast gulf between Democrat policies (anytime anywhere abortions) and their smug insistence that all these new Americans of Latin descent will continue to vote D. As Democrats become more extreme on the abortion issue, I see them losing more and more Hispanics. There's plenty of opportunity for a good Republican candidate to appeal to Democrats who don't feel at home in the new hyper race- and class-conscious Dem party where "shout your abortion" is a rallying cry. Ick. Far leftism is not as attractive as far-leftists like to think it is.
Anyone who sees in Fiorina a "showy posture of ultraconservative anger" must be as far to the Left as, oh, Eugene Robinson. She is not now nor has she ever been "ultraconservative" by any reasonable standard. You can tell whom they fear the most by whom they attack most fiercely.
I think Robinson is confusing "passion" with "rage". Carly has passion. Trump has fake rage, but I guess that's good enough for the Trumpkins.
Obama had passion (or high-quality fake passion), and that made a big difference for him.
I really like Carly. She's quick on her feet, and she has the specifics. She knows that the 6th Fleet operates in the Med, but she throws it off so off-handedly, it's like she assumes we all know that and doesn't belabor it. I'm still hesitant and skeptical about a novice politician running for the Presidency, but she may actually be the real deal.
The question is whether Carly is lying about her current positions.
She strikes me as a pro-choice person who is waking up to the infanticide of unborn children. For instance, she said this:
Because when Americans realize it is going on, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, they are horrified.
That's the sort of thing you say when you are waking up to the horror of abortion. You feel that many people have no idea what is going on, and the media has been hiding the bodies. And you are angry that you've been lied to, and fooled. So I think her anger is genuine. She believes that many "pro-choice" people would be horrified if they actually saw what abortion looks like, and how late in the term we do abortions in this country.
I don't think she has said anything like "all abortions should be a crime" or "life begins at conception" or anything like that. She might very well pivot a bit in the general election. But does she think that Planned Parenthood has murdered some innocent people? Yes. Clearly she thinks that, and she is speaking out.
@Saint Croix
One can be like me and think that abortion is horrible, but that the costs of outlawing it would be too high (even leaving the question of Constitutional protection to the side). But I admit, I never imagined that there was a whole ghoulish industry in selling off the aborted fetuses piece by piece.
Sanders has RAF or Resting Angry Face.
One can be like me and think that abortion is horrible, but that the costs of outlawing it would be too high
As Thomas Jefferson put it, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
He's talking about slavery, of course. But it's the same dynamic.
I can't tell you how awful it is, how evil it is, to define human beings as sub-human property. When you put a class of people outside the law, it opens the door to atrocities. This is why good people, nice people, were slave-owners.
George Washington
James Madison
Thomas Jefferson
It seems so obvious to us. How can you buy and sell human beings? How can you kidnap innocent people? Violate families, steal children, rape women, torture men? And it all happens by the simple trick of the brain. You fool yourself into thinking these aren't really people.
But once you see the humanity, once you say, "holy shit, that's a baby," you can't go back. Telling a pro-lifer that it "costs" too much to recognize humanity is like telling an abolitionist that it would wreck the economy of the South. I'm as capitalist as the next Republican, but I would be happy to wreck this billion dollar market.
"I'm still hesitant and skeptical about a novice politician running for the Presidency, but she may actually be the real deal."
I agree and am hugely impressed with her and Carson.
Democrats have easily pushed buttons. I have a daughter who is a lefty but reasonable enough that I can talk to her. A few months ago, she was upset about some Texas school board that decided to teach creation alongside evolution in science classes. I am very pro teaching evolution and got into a nasty debate at Ricochet about evolution and medical students.
Anyway, I asked her which would she consider more important, knowing about evolution or being able to read and do math?
She agreed that reading and math are more important. She has a sister and brother, both lawyers, who I can't talk to about politics.
"Telling a pro-lifer that it "costs" too much to recognize humanity is like telling an abolitionist that it would wreck the economy of the South."
I am pro-choice because I have seen what illegal abortion looks like. However, 20 weeks should be the limit and maybe that will creep back as viability increases. There is no moral case for selling body parts as PP is doing. If there were, donors for kidney transplant or, even easier, bone marrow transplant should be paid. It's the law.
Carly has been in business at a high level where she has had to pay the price, to be accountable. I am not so sure that Hillary can point to an instance in her life where she has had to pay a price for her own actions. Hillary feigns while Carly feels. Hillary jabbers around the questions, Carly addresses them head on.
Michael K, above, makes a very good point about CF having had to confront not only board members but analysts on conference calls. If you have ever listened to one of those you know that no one is in the mood for bullshit jabber.
Michael K at 10:16 a.m.
... she [Hillary Clinton] was a young Watergate Committee staffer and was fired for lying.
Hillary Clinton was not fired from her position in the Watergate investigation.
Furthermore, she did not commit any lying offenses.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
I think Carly's official position is to outlaw all abortion with the exception of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.
Pretty good stuff here.
(I was wrong to suggest she might pivot in the general election. She tells a funny story about a donor who suggested she should).
And you then tell me the counsel for the committee was lying about firing her ?
Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
It sounds like a "he said, she said" controversy and I appreciate you reading that very very long Snopes article trying to defend her.
I assume you also have a good explanation for the Rose Law Firm billing records' miraculous appearance in the White House living quarters.
If I had the unenviable task of advising the Clinton campaign, I wouldn't be coming up with goop like "be more authentic!" or "show people you really care about them!" or "get angry, then they will think you authentically care about them!" Instead, I'd advise a "stay below the radar" strategy. Continue to avoid the media, keep your speeches as bland and short as possible, stick with robotic and most of all boring. Boring is good for her! It's hard for the opposition to rally against boring. Sanders has a ceiling, and ultimately won't beat Hillary one on one (unless he somehow wins over the black vote to the same degree Obama did, and that's unlikely) and she'll get the nomination by default. Then, wait for the GOP to do what it does best--self destruct so their nominee can top out below 50% and she can win by doing nothing.
This manufactured rage crap? It's not just obviously fake, it's offputting. Anyone who wants rage already has Sanders and Trump to vote for. Go with boring and take the voters who just say "screw it, I'm voting Hillary." In fact, that could be her campaign slogan.
If Republicans REALLY want to cause Dems trouble --- propose a ban of abortion after 30 weeks. They can't make any claims on viability. Either Dems support it or are shown to be the frauds that they are on the issue.
Not many women would support killing a 7.5 month gestation baby.
Hillary and Carly have different personas. Hillary is going for "competent schoolmarm," an older know-it-all type you can trust to put in charge of, for example, an elementary school bake sale, or a sprawling bureaucracy.
Carly presents herself as Boudica or Joan of Arc: a warrior-woman fighting for liberty.
The latter is always more appealing-- but do you want your kids' bake sale run by Boudica?
Hilliary is a phoney. That's why rage doesn't work for her. Everyone but the kool-aid drinkers know she's full of shit.
"Does Eugene Robinson eat his own filth? Probably not..."
"Does Eugene Robinson molest goats? Probably not..."
"Does Eugene Robinson....
"do you want your kids' bake sale run by Boudica?"
Do you mean the bake sale that is shut down by police because of OSHA ?
That bake sale?
"I wonder if Hillary Clinton is watching Fiorina's rise and trying to learn something about how a woman can present herself in an exciting, compelling way."
Hillary is doing much better in her primary than Carly is in hers. Why would she look to copy Carly?
The mainstream Rs are doing better than Carly in a matchup against Hillary. According to RCP, Carly only does 0.2% better than Donald does against Hillary.
I know that law isn't a so-called math-heavy degree, but come on: do the math.
Cleanup need on this thread, please. Ritmo has awakened.
Eugene Robinson is shrill! Nevertheless, it's time for the Dems and the Trumpadopes to take Carly down. It's important that Trump be the nominee. He'll lose to any Democrat.
Democrats won't vote for him. They have their own jackasses. Thoughtful Republicans and Independents won't vote for him. A vote for Trump is a big "fuck you" to both Republicans and the country. Thoughtful people don't do that.
Who, or what, is "Ritmo"?
hombre said...
"Democrats won't vote for him. They have their own jackasses. Thoughtful Republicans and Independents won't vote for him. A vote for Trump is a big "fuck you" to both Republicans and the country. Thoughtful people don't do that."
I agree if you replace Trump with Rubio the amnesty liar.
Roughcoat, Rhythm and BS has changed his nom de blog many times. Once his name was Ritmo.
"If Carly can do it, why not Hillary?"
You mean have a personality implant like Jenner's tits? I don't think that medical science is that advanced.
"Carly undermines that pro-Hillary sexism argument,"
It's not an argument dear, it's posture, a claim, like the claim that there's a Great Right wing Conspiracy out to get the Clintons.
If Hillary displays emotion, she'll be judged according to standards that are only imposed on women.
Poor women, why do bad things always happen to them, because patriarchy.
There are reasons for a candidate to eschew the anger mode, but Carly makes it harder for Hillary to claim she must be flat and bland lest people see her as a screeching harridan.
So the two states of womanhood are flat/bland and screeching harridan? And who will tell us that Hillary! is a screeching harridan? F. Chuck Todd? Andrea Mitchell? Eugene Robinson? The MSM talking heads who are circling around Dr. Carson because he has concerns that someone who is a Muslim who believes the things that the mainstream resident of, say, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran, believes may not be a good choice for President of the US? Because we know how committed they are to pluralism, women's rights and freedom to worship the God of your choice. But I digress.
"Roughcoat, Rhythm and BS has changed his nom de blog many times. Once his name was Ritmo."
And, the "Montana" thing for a while. I'm thinking there's at least one other, but I can't recall it just now.
Anywho, I like changing my own handle. In fact I adopted PB&J after it was an insult that cons here used against me.
Maybe I'll now switch to sandwich_LeDouanier or sandwich_myFellowRepublicans.
Can we just accept that Gene Robinson is -- and always has been -- the easternmost end of a horse walking west.
I am pro-choice because I have seen what illegal abortion looks like.
Hi Mike,
I appreciate your honesty in this discussion. It's got to be difficult to talk about performing abortions when so many of the people you are talking to are pro-life. I'm impressed by your courage and your candor. (I'm also glad you've quite doing them!)
I do think abortion is necessary in rare cases, for instance an ectopic pregnancy when the mother's life is in danger. So we need surgeons who are able to do this surgery. But I also think it's corrupting to the medical profession, and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, to do elective abortions for money. Can you talk a little bit about why you stopped?
There was a famous abortion doctor, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was an early abortion rights advocate and practitioner. He co-founded the abortion rights league that became NARAL. He performed thousands of abortions on women and young girls, and the doctors in his clinic performed thousands more. One of the abortions he performed was on the woman that he had impregnated. He aborted his own child.
With the improvements in ultrasounds, he started getting upset about his own practice. He stopped performing abortions. And he became convinced he had killed thousands of innocent babies.
It was extremely traumatic for him. He became self-hating and suicidal. What saved him was the Christian idea that he is loved, that anything can be forgiven, and that atonement is always possible. He became pro-life and made the movie, The Silent Scream.
Anyway, God bless. Thanks again for your honesty.
The latter is always more appealing-- but do you want your kids' bake sale run by Boudica?
I want Boudica fighting against the government so that my kids have the right to have a bake sale.
, I have discussed politics with (or overheard conversations with) women I would otherwise characterize as mature, intelligent, analytical, business-like, etc. In an alarming number of cases, they spontaneously stated outright that they would not vote for a Republican POTUS more or less solely because of the threat to abortion rights that they think would result.
Me too.
It's why I have started supporting the repeal of the 19th Amendment.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा