The resemblance is uncanny...

Have Romney and Borgi ever been in the same room together??

I don't think so! :D

Michale.....

Yep...

http://sjfm.us/temp/bluebloods1.jpg

I know who is going to play Romney in the movie.. :D

Michale

That is the most perfect example of the illogic and irrationality of the Left as I have ever come across..

To paraphrase Spock, the Democrats believe that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many...

"Fascinating"....

Michale.....

The problem with depending upon a strategy like that is, it dissolves once Romney goes before the American people in a debate situation. He doesn't come off like a wicked ogre. He's straight out of central casting, as far as looking/sounding presidential. And he has a nice demeanor and articulates his positions very well. And, at the end of the debate, he just doesn't live up to the monster that the Left has created, in the eyes of the average voter. So all those ad dollars go right down the drain.

Exactly, Michale. It's like employees demanding that a Jewish organization put pork on the cafeteria menu. Meanwhile, Ol' Joe managed to rile the Bishops up with his statements during the veep debate:

Catholic Bishops Call Biden A Liar On ObamaCare
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101512-629392-catholic-bishops-say-biden-lied-about-obamacare.htm

here, here...

Well said...

Michale.....

Headlines pointing out starlets in see-through tops without bras is bad enough - so bad that I had to fact-check by looking to determine just how bad.

But this one is reprehensible: "How Romney Is Like Putin," and too outrageous to read. Governor Romney is assuredly not like Putin, any more than President Obama is like Stalin or Marx or whomever those headlines proferred for comparison.

Such crap does not have a place in civil dialogue, let alone on an ostensible news site.

Equal pay for equal work has nothing to do w/ making women depend on government.

True..

Then why doesn't Obama's White House pay women equal pay for equal work???

I noticed how no one wants to touch THAT fact, eh? :D

LB,

Chris, if I take all of your responses in [120] and [126], then does it follow that you believe women have a right to choose to have an abortion, so long as it is not supported by the government?

Well, you didn't ask me, but let me put in my two cents worth..

If a religious organization has employees and such contraception is against the organizations' beliefs to offer such, then I don't think the government should be able to FORCE said organizations to provide it..

If women want such benefits, then they should find employment outside of religious organizations..

I have nothing against contraceptives, philosophically... I DO, however, have a beef with having to pay for it for others..

I'll get to the rest later..

LAST RESORT is on....

One of the best new shows in the line-up!! :D

Michale.....

Have to get ready for dinner. Good evening.

That is my impression. While I reversed the direction of the arc over my life, I've tried to adhere to the Churchill statement to the effect that someone not a liberal at 20 has no heart, and someone not a conservative at 40 (remembering 60 is the new 40) has no brain.

The closest the USA has ever come to a melding of that is the Republican sense of American intelligence of T. Roosevelt with the sense of American social contract of R. LaFollette.

To the point, I see a lot of that in what I know of UKIP.

I like you, LB. You're my kinda people.

There is no party as insane as the Republicans in the UK. As I've mentioned before, the BNP might be close.

Fair enough. If it works for you, that works for me.

It's been going on since the VP debate. The big damage in the first debate was to women's constituencies. That has been largely fixed, and it's time the image framers put back the other half of us.

I don't really see myself caring about that, LB.

- Artist-formerly-known-as-Romneycare-Care
- America-finally-joins-the-21st-century-Care
- You-should-be-able-to-see-a-Doctor-regardless-of-income-Care
- I-forgot-that-I-once-supported-this-I-must-have-Romnesia-Care
- A-Conservative-solution-to-healthcare-except-when-passed-by-that-Muslim-Usurper-then-it's-socialism!-Care

There were lots of good lines outside the Romnesia too. I particularly liked: Mr Severely Conservative wants you to think he was severely kidding about everything he said over the last year

Maybe "Scary-care"? No, not with Halloween coming up.

Gee, I don't know...

Think of your evangelicals. I could tell you an anecdote where that very four-letter word induced a woman to apologize to me for her 12-year old using it in my presence.

Coincidentally, I just did, too, (it can be accessed using the "Bob Cesca" link on the right sidebar of this site). And you're right: that was as good as Reagan or Clinton ever were. And, my sarcasm above notwithstanding, "Romnesia" is pretty good too, at least as good as Obamacare was. It may have better than a three week half-life, and that's all it needs.

It's about time to start bring men to the crowd behind the podiums (podia?), though.

I don't really watch stump speeches, but the few minutes of the Romnesia speech is certainly the best I've seen Obama give probably in the whole of 2012. The timing and emphasis was excellent and the crowd lapped it up.

I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this term and this is the beginning of a new shift to highlight flip-flopping Mitt on a national stage - I am surprised it has taken so long after Mitt reversed every single policy he has had in the 1st debate...

Works for me.

Anyway: RE: Romnesia. I don't like such made up words. First, they're generally the stuff of the AM radio/goober wing of the electorate. Second, they sometimes get turned into something the other side actually likes or can use, like Obamacare. How annoying is that, when your snark actually gets adopted by your target? Then you have to run out and invent another (and Chris, Crap-care isn't going to cut it)

Finally, here's yet another example of how the Rove model of lie is fraying now, because the truth doesn't come in the shadows with a comfortable time lag. It's under attack by the internet. From an Obama stump (bolding mine):

"If you come down with a case of Romnesia and you can't seem to remember the policies that are still on your website, or the promises you have made over the six years you've been running for president, here is the good news: Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions" ...

Fodder for fun if you keep 'em up, fodder for fun if you take 'em down.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to shape shift these days when the public's sheep-length recall frames are augmented by websites and iPhone search capabilities? Thankfully, a goodly proportion of the Republican base still lives outside the range of 4G and affordable fixed broadband.

Okay, that's enough sarcasm and snark. It's just that I had a good and fun lunch.

We have these discussions here in America as well.

Unfortunately, the Rush Limbaugh rage and government conspiracy stuff seems to play much better here.

Just yell "Freedom!" and find yourself an enemy (like the government or liberals or illegal immigrants) and you've got yourselves a party :). It's so formulaic though that after a while it gets old.

-David

If anything's "paid for" in this country, with that $16T debt of ours, it's the wars. Maintaining a military/defending the country is one of the very few things that We, the People, gave our federal public servants authority to spend federal dollars on; not the endless Kumbaya programs and entitlements.

Just one question, Chris. If Rom's plan is deficit neutral, this means it won't raise or lower any revenue.

Employed people also raise the revenue, and getting them off the welfare rolls lowers the deficit. Returning powers to the states lowers the deficit, as well. And then there's cutting federal agencies and getting the entitlements under control, which is a whole other story. The first thing that needs to go is CrapCare.

There is only one answer and that answer is that Romney is looking to redistribute who pays and how much.

Now who do you think is going to get the redistribution under Romney?

I don't even understand the way your mind works, D. You — and the Left, in general — seem to be under the impression that our federal public servants are the bosses and that We, the People (which, BTW, includes those evil business owners and wealthy folks), work for our servants. You Lefties have things so backwards that I don't even know how or where to begin addressing your comments. For starters, the federal government doesn't have any money; it belongs to We, the People. Yet you speak as though our federal public servants need to take more and more of it away from us and distribute it however they wish. It doesn't work that way. If our servants are reckless with the allocations of our dollars, or spend them in a way that doesn't meet our approval, we fire them. And "we" includes those business owners and folks who have the utter audacity to become wealthy. They have a say in how much money they're willing to give our servants, and how they want it to be spent, and how they want their servants to service them and their businesses.

For those who can stomach him, the full episode (18th) has a great "focus group" satire piece as well, where they have a focus group commenting on the debate (serious), another focus group commenting on the first focus group (body language expert commenting on the body language of the body language expert, fashion expert commenting on the wardrobe of the fashion expert, etc), and then the focus group that counted: one Ohio undecided voter in the basement watching the debate alone.

And I would be happy with that route as well. Super-majorities required over multiple federalist routes to the amendment. And the judges and the state legislatures are out of the decision.

Anything else leaves the issue in the current legal, moral, scientific, and political quagmire.

Now who do you think is going to get the redistribution under Romney?

Redistributing, by it's very definition, cannot be 'neutral' to both side - it involves one party to the redistribution receiving more and one party receiving less. Under Rmoney's plan, money is MAGICALLY re-distributed so that one party receives more (tax cuts) and the other isn't affected at all. MAGIC. Of course, like his binders full of women, it is complete bullshit and everyone with half a brain knows who the benefactors of his plan would be (the clue is that he himself has been telling us for 6 years!). If you actually believe him, you clearly suffer from Romnesia.

What makes the Romney tax plan so funny is just that; it's the internal contradictions between the rhetorical requirements of moderate candidate Romney and the delivery manifest of oligarchy shill Romney.

Ignore for the moment CBO scoring or economic growth assumptions. Just consider the rhetoric: Higher income cohorts will pay no more in taxes. Middle income cohorts will pay less. Yet it costs no more. What's that word President Clinton used? "Arithmetic"?

Nobody has much choice but to support the laws of the land. They are what they are. And the federal government doesn't have the authority to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies — unfortunately for the unborn, who's sharing that body. I think the law grossly neglects to factor in that there are two humans involved in the pregnancy, and the defenseless one's fate is being left in the hands of the mother. I don't think a woman should get to decide whether another human lives or dies any more than anyone else has that right. Having the power to kill another human doesn't seem like it should be constitutional, to me.

You imply you would support Constitutional resolution.

I would totally support it.

The campaign's positions on that seems to imply that could only come by amendment, because of the position that judges should not be in charge via interpretation.

I agree. Federal law trumps state law. And if we have a situation where states interpret it, states will be changing the interpretation/law, back and forth, depending on which party is in power, and the judges they can get onto the benches. It has to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, IMO, with no wiggle room regarding whether an unborn should have constitutional protections. And that requires a constitutional amendment.

[Ed. Note: Yep. Two links means manual approval for your comment. It's now been approved. Just a note for everyone to remember... -CW]

Day after the first debate someone wrote on this blog (okay, it was me):

"Moreover, while it's generally not a good idea to attribute to strategy that which can be explained by a "fail," I'm not completely sure it wasn't Rope-A-Dope." (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/10/03/snap-debate-reactions/#comment-27692
)

Now comes this, speculating that maybe there was method to the stark difference in Obama performances; something known as Rope-A-Dope.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Revenge-of-the-Nerd-by-Anthony-Barnes-121018-893.html

I know there are some here who don't believe that Team-O (which is pronounced teem-zero) is anywhere near smart enough or gritty enough to have decided to pull something like that off. The same Team-O that media carpet bombed Governor Romney into a caricature of himself before the election even really got rolling. The same Team-O that used that caricature, and encouraged their allies in the media to use it as well, to turn things like 47 and the binders into persistent icons and penetrate far deeper than they would otherwise have.

Just sayin...

My level of interest (and, really it would be better called curiosity) in your personal belief wasn't where I was going with my question.

Many people on both sides of such a complex issue are prone to ignore the principles and substitute their personal belief. Saying what I said was simply to make that clear.

But if I parse your answer closely, I can take from it that same position that the Romney campaign is currently presenting: so long as it is the law of the land, it's okay (the federal support aspect notwithstanding).

You imply you would support Constitutional resolution. The campaign's positions on that seems to imply that could only come by amendment, because of the position that judges should not be in charge via interpretation.

The second leg of the campaign's position is the legislative prohibition. You haven't yet answered that part of my question...

If war is necessary, maybe we should pay for it.

If we aren't willing to pay for it, then it's likely not necessary.

The Romney/Ryan plan will offer a choice.

A choice between two plans. Both of which will cost more than they do now.

Like I said, I don't hold the Left's fear and loathing of businesses and/or successful people.

Just one question, Chris. If Rom's plan is deficit neutral, this means it won't raise or lower any revenue.

Why do it at all then?

There is only one answer and that answer is that Romney is looking to redistribute who pays and how much.

Now who do you think is going to get the redistribution under Romney?

You can keep calling me names all you want but it doesn't change the fact that Romney's plan is a shit sandwich for the average American.

You pay more, the wealthy pay less.

Romney is a good salesman though, I'll give him that. You are too!

-David

Yeah, I can be, and I am.

Or, have you resigned yourself to the idea that Romney will not be elected

To the contraray. I believe he will be elected.

and therefore none of us need be concerned about his positions?

Concern yourself all you like. It's not gonna change his positions any.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BBEXB1Wf9c

I think O holds many beliefs that are not the record.

He believes in ending our wars. Romney, I don't know. From his rhetoric, it seems like he could be interested in starting another. I know that's why Michale likes him anyways.

If war is necessary, it's necessary. I think pulling out of Iraq was wrong. It's now crawling with al Qaeda. And I believe O makes withdrawal decisions for political reasons and gain. And a commander should not make decisions based on what serves him best.

What about those of us who aren't in the system and have paid in for 25 years?

Medicare/SS are unsustainable, D. Something has to be done. The Romney/Ryan plan will offer a choice. The've been talking about it for months. Go to Romney's site and read about it.

The problem I have w/ Romney (and most current conservatives) is that they cherry pick their economic arguments to largely justify the same old handouts to wealthy donors.

Those are your personal perceptions and opinions, D. Like I said, I don't hold the Left's fear and loathing of businesses and/or successful people. If you don't like the way your representatives are interacting with businesses and the evil rich, vote them out and replace them with people who share your values.

Constitutionally and legally, yeah, they have a right. It's the law of the land. I don't personally support it, though. I'm a Roman Catholic and proud of it. I'm completely against abortion. I'd like to see the unborn be given the same constitutional rights and protections as any other American human being.

And, note, you're gonna get my personal opinion whether you're interested in it or not.

Come on man - didn't you get the Fox News memo? The Middle East was a peace loving region full of American allies before that Kenyan Muslim usurper came to power in 2008 and 'led from behind' (don't know what this means, but it sounds like it must be true) democratically installing his Muslim allies (from behind) wherever he could.

This is a great question, LB. I know Obama believes this. I'm pretty sure Romney doesn't. Though again, from all the equivocating, it's hard to tell.

What's your position on this issue Chris1962?

-David

No, I know what Obama believes. You do too, even though you may not like it.

He believes in ending our wars. Romney, I don't know. From his rhetoric, it seems like he could be interested in starting another. I know that's why Michale likes him anyways.

Obama believes in keeping Social Security/Medicare commitments. Romney says he will keep the commitment only to people who are in the system. What about those of us who aren't in the system and have paid in for 25 years?

He believes in well-paying, solid benefit jobs in America. I've seen no signs Romney does. Romney seems to believe that companies are going to move overseas and the only way to stop this is by lowering wages and benefits here in America.

Obama believes in supply and demand side economics. Romney seems to believe in only supply side economics.

Obama believes in equal opportunity. Romney seems to believe that you can have all the opportunity you want if you pay for it. For example, you'll have exactly the education you can pay for. No more.

And I don't know why you're concerned about Romney's positions, since there's no way you would ever vote for him anyhow.

You might be surprised. I'm a fan of Milton Friedman, for example. At least Friedman the economist. Not Friedman the Tea Party religion.

The problem I have w/ Romney (and most current conservatives) is that they cherry pick their economic arguments to largely justify the same old handouts to wealthy donors.

If there was a conservative who ran solely on a solid economic agenda, rather than the simple "lower taxes = always good" or "private sector = always better" principles, I'd be all ears.

I mean Friedman actually made some pretty good arguments about when government makes sense. And other economists have expanded on his ideas. But today's conservatives like economics when it supports the supply side and ignore it when it doesn't.

Obama is much better at looking at all economic ideas, or all anything for that matter. He takes ideas from many sources, even ones like the Heritage Foundation.

-David

This is hyperbole. Morrocco is stable. Algeria is stable (and, suprisingly to me, BTW, was the only nation on the Med that did not have active protests this last time). Tunisia is staunchly pro-American. Egypt is in the defining throes of a nation who has had a repressive de-facto secular regime deposed while a repressive military remains largely intact.

The facts of Libya are to be determined, but I personally believe that it will move more towards the situation of Tunisia than of Algeria.

Syria, whether we like it or not, is ground zero for the meddling state interests of Russia, China, Europe, and the US, as well as a tripod of Baathist dictator, Sunni economic interests and Islamic fundamentalist interests.

Given the removal of the repressive secular regime in Libya, I see NA overall as more in the throes of seismic aftershocks than continuing tectonic movements.

And, second, do you believe that a legislature's majority, relying on a majority's adopted definition of a fetus (of some arbitrary term, including the time of conception) as a Constitutionally protected human being, has a right to prohibit abortion?

Note I'm not interested in your personal position.

And I don't know why you're concerned about Romney's positions, since there's no way you would ever vote for him anyhow.

You can't be serious!

Or, have you resigned yourself to the idea that Romney will not be elected and therefore none of us need be concerned about his positions?

Same could be said of Obama. And I don't know why you're concerned about Romney's positions, since there's no way you would ever vote for him anyhow.

I take that back. He has given us one specific. We know he believes in a 20% tax cut.

He knows he believes in his tax reform plan. And if anyone can make it happen, I suspect it's him. He's a successful businessman and has experience with working, bipartisanly, with a heavy-duty Dem congress. I'm confident he'll bring his talents and experiences to the table and get tax reform accomplished — especially if he ends up with a Republican congress.

Actually if his overall philosophy is the Ayn Rand 'do whatever it takes to obtain power/money' then these actions do make sense. This is what I believe he stands for.

The tax cut is just a further extension of this and his Ayn Rand business philosophy - screw everyone else as long as it gets me more money.

You mean he didn't know any qualified women?

I'm not a libertarian, so I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you believe in then?

I have the same problem with Mitt Romney. I don't know what he believes or doesn't believe. It seems to depend on his audience.

Sometimes he's libertarian. Sometimes he's religious. Sometimes he's mainstream.

Your point?

Touchy, touchy on the marketing thing. Is this a sore spot?

You wouldn't by any chance be working for a certain political party in this election, would you?

Nevermind ... I suppose if you were you couldn't tell us.

My point is simply that I have no idea what Mitt Romney believes or will do. He talks religion to the religious. And Ayn Rand to the libertarians. Two philosophies which couldn't be more opposite. Then he's a centrist in the broad public debate. I have no idea what he really believes.

He's little more than marketing.

I take that back. He has given us one specific. We know he believes in a 20% tax cut.

Why can he give us this specific and not any others?

-David

This is documented fact..

O also runs a pretty hostile workplace, according to Anita Dunn: "This place would be in court for a hostile workplace because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."

Oh, and let's not forget Christina Romer: "I felt like a piece of meat..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038386/Obamas-White-House-hostile-environment-women-treated-like-meat.html

There's no such thing as "equal work." No two workers turn out the same product.

You mean he's for legislating religious beliefs?

No, he's for the first amendment. Freedom of religion.

What happened to your libertarian side? Where'd it go?

I'm not a libertarian, so I don't know what you're talking about.

I believe Mitt did when he asked for the binders full of women.

He asked for womens' resumes. You'll have to talk to that MassGAP women's group about their use of binders.

You've got all the standard conservative marketing phrases nailed.

And you've got all the standard liberal marketing phrases nailed. Your point?

Not interested in your fear-and-loathing-of-successful-people rant, D. Nothing puts me to sleep faster.

Well, hello there Ayn Rand ... you've moved back to the right.

When is Mitt going to? After he's elected?

Equal pay for equal work has nothing to do w/ making women depend on government.

He's against business owners being forced to go against their conscience, just like the Catholic Church is.

You mean he's for legislating religious beliefs? Everyone should be forced to abide by Catholic rules?

What happened to your libertarian side? Where'd it go?

Who said he didn't know any qualified women?

I believe Mitt did when he asked for the binders full of women.

-David

p.s. But you're back on your game, Chris. You've got all the standard conservative marketing phrases nailed.

You played the 'big government' bogeyman. The religious card. And the Libertarian card all at once.

And heck, you may even believe some of this. But the people who are funding Mitt Romney only believe in one thing. Tax cuts and deregulation for them. They don't give a rats ass about freedom unless they can use it to benefit them. They don't give a rats ass about religion unless it can be used to benefit them.

Like I said, David.. They are only "rants" when they espouse facts that no one has a response for. :D

I can always tell when I have Weigantians on the ropes..

They have nothing to say.. :D

The right has to work overtime to find even the smallest little thing to try to turn into a controversy w/ the Obama administration.

Yer kidding, right!?? You throw a dart at the Obama Administration, you can't HELP but hit some bonehead move, some totally moronic action, some totally un-American statement...

No work necessary whatsoever, overtime or otherwise...

Let me contrast with a foreign policy mistake that is actually a huge foreign policy mistake. Two unpaid wars. Now the continued relevance of this is that I believe Romney would pursue a similar path.

As opposed to leading from behind and turning the ENTIRE Middle East over to radical fundamental Islamists??

Or, we could talk about Obama's assassination of American citizens abroad.. (which I really don't have a problem with, but I would have expected that YA'ALL would...

Or, we could talk about Obama's utter contempt for Israel, about how Obama refuses to give a red line on Iran, but has NO PROBLEM putting a red line in front of Israel...

You can multiply Bush's Foreign Policy mistakes tenfold and they wouldn't even be on the same planet as Obama's boneheaded Foreign Policy decisions...

Obama has screwed up the Middle East six ways from Sunday... Maybe making a vast Islamic diaspora that stretches from Gibraltar to the Black Sea was Obama's goal..

Or maybe it was simply incompetence...

But there can be no mistake that Obama has totally frak'ed up the Middle East.. Instead of ONE Iran, we're going to have a half dozen Irans....

Michale.....

That simply shows Romney is good at what he does..

Business...

It's the kind of man this country NEEDS in the White House...

Wouldn't you agree???

Michale.....

Women in the White House are paid less than men for the same work.

This is documented fact..

Of course, you'll ignore this fact because it violated the number one rule of the Left.

Obama is always right...

David,

Romney cares about 1 thing. Giving tax cuts to well off individuals.

Assumes facts not in evidence..

Even if you can point to a single Romney statement that indicates such, it means as much as Obama saying that there are no red or blue states, just a UNITED States..

In other words, politicians can say what they WILL do until they're blue in the face...

Doesn't mean diddly squat as to what they REALLY end up doing.

One only has to look at Obama's campaign vs Obama's presidency to know that this is true..

I'm sure Romney thinks women are just fine but please ... he's not exactly a champion of fair pay or women's rights.

It's well documented that Obama doesn't care about fair pay for women either. Other than just paying it lip service...

Another example of a politician SAYING one thing but DOING another...

CB,

I have to echo LB's praise of your statements..

Making women dependent upon government does not translate into "caring about women," in my book. Quite the opposite.

Especially THAT one...

THAT is so dead on ballz accurate (I.T.) it's scary...

Michale.....

It's refreshing to read something that does not ooze with the partisan snark that attends most things written these days from the Right.

I couldn't give two hoots about the LDS church. If women don't want to belong, they don't have to.

2. What is Mitt's position on the Lilly Ledbetter bill?

I would assume he's dead set against it, since it's absurd as hell.

3. What is Mitt's position on having healthcare cover contraceptives?

He's against business owners being forced to go against their conscience, just like the Catholic Church is.

4. What's his position on Planned Parenthood?

Is it important enough to borrow money from China to pay for it? No, since its services are also provided by doctors offices and clinics and medicaid. So I'd start getting ready to hold a whole lot of black-tie fundraisers, if I were Planned Parenthood.

5. How come Romney didn't know any qualified women and had to be brought binders?

Who said he didn't know any qualified women? And who says only the qualified women he personally knew should be considered for the job slots? And what makes you think women in private-sector positions even want to leave their fields and go into government jobs?

I mean c'mon. I was fine w/ just joking about it until you tried to tell me Romney cares about women's issues.

Making women dependent upon government does not translate into "caring about women," in my book. Quite the opposite.

Since you only seem to want to talk politics ...

1. Why not ask Mitt about his position on women in the LDS church? Are there any women in positions of power?

2. What is Mitt's position on the Lilly Ledbetter bill?

3. What is Mitt's position on having healthcare cover contraceptives?

4. What's his position on Planned Parenthood?

5. How come Romney didn't know any qualified women and had to be brought binders?

I mean c'mon. I was fine w/ just joking about it until you tried to tell me Romney cares about women's issues. That seems like a stretch. I mean no more than his other lies about caring about the middle class. Or the poor. Or college kids. But a stretch.

Romney cares about 1 thing. Giving tax cuts to well off individuals. The market can take care of everything else. The tax cut he is asking for you is merely a way to buy your support for the tax cut for the wealthy. If he could get away with a tax cut to just the 1%, he would.

I'm sure Romney thinks women are just fine but please ... he's not exactly a champion of fair pay or women's rights.

http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/romney-money-bain-photo.jpg

-David

No one puts baby in a binder ...

http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2012/10/best_of_the_binders_full_of_women_mitt_romney_meme-165218.jpg

You might wanna mention that to the MassGAP representative, who was on O'Reilly tonight, recounting how elated MassGAP was that Romney had heard their call and sent his team members over to speak with them. And the rest is history. The MassGAP gals' binders landed on his desk, and Romney saw to it that women were hired into his adminstration.

But DO keep this new Big Bird bomb going, folks. Nobody knows how to damage one's own image better than the Left.

But ... you don't understand ... it's about freedom!

(I've had this said to me numerous times. It's usually at the point when all the other BS has been said and there's simply not much left.)

This is however getting away from binders full of women. Ok, maybe that's getting old.

How about menacing Josh Romney?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-of-menacing-josh-romney

My friend Willard recommended this product yesterday after hearing about my dilemma; namely, the sausage fest that my new office was comprised of. The first thing that surprised me was that it was eligible for FREE SUPER SAVER SHIPPING. After all, we're talking hundreds to thousands of pounds in freight here, right? At $8.69 a unit, I really didn't understand how the profit margin could possibly offset the shipping costs. But Willard assured me that the math adds up somehow, and neither he nor I had time to go into it. Anyway, I received my Avery Durable View Binder, and, while it certainly delivered on it's promise of plus-volume, I can't say I was particularly impressed with the substance therein. Some were single mothers expecting entitlements, others taking issue with my requisite transvaginal ultrasounds. I spent half the afternoon arguing with the women over such absurdities as equal pay and access to contraception through their healthcare plans (my business is listed as a "faith-based non-profit" so I can get 501(3)(c) tax exempt status, so, uh, no!), and by the time 5 o' clock rolls around, no dinner. Nothing. The oven wasn't even preheating. Ugh!

So, while the Avery Durable View Binder may seem like a price-point value, beware that quality does not always equate to quantity.

Ok. I'll admit it. I can't stop reading these ...

Uh, the only thing that "got out there" was the bogus assertion that the attack was owed to a video clip and that protesters had perpetrated the attack. And that message "got out there" via Rice, who'd been sent out to do the Sunday talk show circuit days AFTER O's Rose Garden comments. So if O was stating that it was a terrorist attack, why was his administration telling the American people that it was a protest over a video clip? That question answers itself, of course: O did not specifically cite Benghazi as a terrorist attack; he was speaking about "acts of terror" in general. And now he's playing a backpedaling parsing game, because the administration has been busted, in testimony given by the State Dept. to congress.

or

This binder is only 72% as good as a binder full of men. It should only cost 72% as much! Doesn't this binder know it's place? It totally shouldn't get guaranteed contraceptive care and a right to privacy. What the heck is this little binder thinking?

or

When I bought this binder, I was hoping it would come with some good old fashioned women who were begging to leave work early at 5pm to come cook me dinner. But startlingly, these women refused, then had the gall to demand equal pay and free contraception. I tried to return the binder, but Amazon refused. Now, as a white male, I finally understand what reverse discrimination is. I am hoping to escape this nightmareish hellscape called 21st century America by voting for Mitt Romney this November. He will restore America's binders full of women who respond to my beck and call and are satisfied with lower pay for the same work. I hear some of them can even self -abort

And that's why he didn't say it himself "publicly." But he got it out there. And supporters who are looking for something - anything - to hang on to get something.

If you're in advertising, where does your deep commitment to truth and facts come from? ;-)

By the way, _Newsweek_ print is shutting down. They have theDailyBeast up and solid now. Nobody's going to wait a week for news or commentary anymore, and it's too expensive to buy to line the parakeet cage.

Laud it or mourn it. It's just the way it is.

Back later.

Except that our intel people were communicating with the consulate in real-time. We knew that there were no protesters there, and we knew that it was a heavily armed attack (on a consulate that had been attacked twice before). So O's explanation doesn't wash. That's the problem.

I'm waiting for the Hitler parody; the dinner scene when he's handed the binder is, well, too obvious. Scripts are being written as we speak, I'm sure.

Hahahaha! Okay, would you like to know how funny it is that you actually do know the correct spelling? How many years have you been staring at that box on the breakfast table, m'man? ;D Busted!

"According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a ter[r]orist attack.” ...The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka."

Not saying it answers the questions - it doesn't. Just pointing out the technique; getting something out that would be risky to say straight out.

http://static.selfdeprecate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/romney-women-binder-meme.jpg

I hate to be serious, but binders is a little more than just funny. It's spreading as an established meme, and it's not going to go away.

Good news is: it'll be totally out of the news cycle by tomorrow (replaced by a couple more days of the 'falsehood' side of the story). Bad news: it's becoming iconic for male (and, in particular, the Governor's) trivialization and patronization of women. It's spontaneously appearing where ever the context permits. For example, on Amazon, in reviews of mundane office supplies:

http://www.amazon.com/Avery-Durable-Binder-EZ-Turn-17032/product-reviews/B001B0CTMU/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&c=upworthy

In campaigns in the internet age, these things allow candidates to effectively hit points by reference with more impact than otherwise possible. Until the election, President will merely have to say the word, and the mockery and derision is triggered. It fires up the bases.

These things aren't game changers. Binders isn't 47. But the reinforced _impression_ of the difference in gender attitudes doesn't help the Governor.

Except that Romney's staff didn't exactly make "a concerted effort" to hire women.

http://blog.thephoenix.com/blogs/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx

-David

Except it's the women's group that uses binders. So the joke doesn't even work. And the Left doesn't even seem to get that. LOL. But, hey, keep at it, folks. You're looking great out there.

Maybe in part because of Willard's problem relating to normal people.

I think the Left is buying into its own spin again.

I mean, he's trying to say he cares about women. But it comes off like he's saying, "I care so much about women I even tried to hire a few.

It comes off that way to whom, D? Liberals, who hate his guts? I didn't get that impression from him at all, and I'm a woman. But maybe it's because I'm a business woman, and I know the process of putting out a call to headhunters and receiving a stack of resumes/portfolios, in whatever form they're sent.

I think the message women received was that Romney's staff presented him with all-male options, and Romney made a concerted effort to get women in there. That's not a bad message, D. This is a bad message:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/17/tumblr_mc0mk3zeoo1rj8amio1_400.jpg

No, Hillary, women's groups still use binders. Only clueless Lefties evidently don't know that.

It's just funny. I suppose you can try and paint it as mockery from the "Left" but even my conservative friends found it funny.

Especially, the Bill Clinton one.

Lighten up!
-David

You said it! I find it so funny that no one ever thinks "Christine" or "Christina" when they hear the name "Chris."

I wouldn't lump Chuck Todd in with the Luntzes of the world. If you're looking for a Dem to compare him to, might I suggest Drew Westen? Or maybe James Carville?

The average American wouldn't know Drew Westen from a hole in the wall. He's not exactly a household name. Carville's a good comparison, although he's not really in the game anymore (unfortunately for the Dem party). If I were Obama, I would've been on my knees begging Carville to head up Team-O, long, long ago. And I would also never let Axelrod in front of a camera. Obama is loyal to a fault. His people definitely knew how to package and sell an unknown in 2008. O couldn't have asked for a better team. But they're lost when it comes to an incumbent — one with a bad record, no less. They've never had a strategy in place. They've just been winging it, day by day. And Obama may well lose this election because of it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/would-a-man-who-doesnt-support-women-let-his-wife,29966/

So the Left responds with mockery that goes viral??? Do you guys really think that makes Romney look bad, or does the Left come across as petty as hell? And who is the mockery supposed to resonate with? This is the Left talking to the Left (again) and sounding like school kids to the rest of the country.

Here's a way for you to understand it -- Barack Obama simply did NOT mean what the Right caricatured him as for his "you didn't build that" comment.

Oh, please, that was a massive strategic error, putting O's political philosophy on display, i.e., government is somehow responsible for individuals' success. That may play well for a hard-Leftie like Warren, in a blue-blue state like Massachusetts, but not for a president who's residing over a country that feels the federal government is intrusive and wants less of it in their lives. It was a major strategic error on O's part, to think he could take Warren's messaging national. And Team-O didn't frantically conduct weeks of damage control on that for nothing. But do you see Team-R frantically trying to explain that Romney dropped the word "resumes"? Or are they sitting back, watching you guys drop another Big Bird bomb on yourselves?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mmSUp-LKSgE/UH93YANyeRI/AAAAAAAAIWw/gmY3bXBzmKs/s1600/a%2Bdebate%2B10-16-12%2BMatt%2BBors%2Btoon.png

The binders thing is pretty simple:

(1) Anyone with half a brain knew from the moment he told the story that it was completely made up.
(2) 'Binders full of women' is a funny line.
(3) The whole story was completely condescending and missed the point. You seriously believe there are not enough qualified women out there that Romney has to go to Women's Rights groups and ask for resumes?? That there are no other ways to find qualified women than women's rights groups?? It'd be like saying 'there were no black people in my cabinet so I went to some black right groups and they gave me some binders full of blacks'. It's so condescending to imply that women are so unqualified they have to be sought out merely to 'balance' your team.
(4) Aside from all of this, it had absolutely nothing to do with the question on equal pay for women. So Romney has SO LITTLE to offer in this area that his best answer is a completely made up story that had nothing to do with this. That says everything that needs to be said.

All in all it was car crash TV of the highest variety and it was hilarious.

p.s. I checked again ... and it's still funny.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/17/tumblr_mc0mk3zeoo1rj8amio1_400.jpg

Maybe in part because of Willard's problem relating to normal people. I mean, he's trying to say he cares about women. But it comes off like he's saying, "I care so much about women I even tried to hire a few. But I didn't know any qualified women, so they brought me the binders and I picked out a few."

I could see him thinking about people in general like this. "We need a Chief of Staff ... quick, bring me the binders!" People are just resources to be plugged into his Enterprise.

But mostly, it's just a funny image.

-David

It's so hard to follow your train of thought these days. You've gone from a single rant which used to be at least narrowed to a single point to 3-4 rants per response, often replying to yourself so many times within the rant that it's near impossible to follow.

Look, this is very simple. It's a matter of scale.

The right has to work overtime to find even the smallest little thing to try to turn into a controversy w/ the Obama administration. They have to use all of the power of their propaganda networks to try and tilt the news to something that even if there were a semblance of truth in it, I don't think anyone even knows what it means.

Don't you think this might be a sign that Obama is doing a pretty good job?

You turn the microscope on ultra high and yet this is all you can find?

Let me contrast with a foreign policy mistake that is actually a huge foreign policy mistake. Two unpaid wars. Now the continued relevance of this is that I believe Romney would pursue a similar path.

Why? Because this is how Republicans distract you from all the deregulation and upward redistribution of wealth they want to do here at home. It's also the way that they stay in power despite unpopular policies.

People might notice that the entire country is being outsourced unless we give them another enemy ... this is a pattern conservatives have followed successfully in the past.

Don't focus on what's going on ... Look, there's an enemy! Look there's a socialist! Look, there's a Muslim! Look, there's the government trying to tax you! Look, there's a lazy person who's taking your money! Look there's an illegal immigrant trying to sneak across the border! Look, there's a Democrat trying to illegally vote!

Look at anything but what we're doing ... You can keep buying it, Michale. But the pattern gets old after a while.

-David

What it all boils down to is that ya'all defend Obama for doing the EXACT same things (only worse, MUCH worse) that ya'all savaged and attacked Bush over..

And what is REALLY frustrating is that NO ONE here sees ANYTHING wrong with that....

Michale..

That should have 'lied' in quotes, because it has been well established that Bush did not, in fact, lie...

So that SHOULD read:

Now, under Bush, ya'all got pissy and hysterical when Bush "lied" to suit a NATIONAL SECURITY agenda.

My bust....