I had no idea she has MS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildflower
Printable View
I had no idea she has MS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildflower
I never said she hasn't struggled for whatever reason. I never said she wasn't a good mother or a good wife, or a good supporter for her husbands ambitions. I never said any of those things, or even implied them. All I said was, she isn't the expert a future possible president would go to for advise in this area. That's all I said, and essentially that's all the consultant said. Period. She really isn't an expert in this area any more than I'm an expert in elevators for cars. Pretending otherwise is phony.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbgeek
You know, no one said anything about her or his family until he started to try to portray them as everyman average struggling family. That's when people started calling them on it.
These people are super wealthy and build houses and ride horses and spend money as a hobby. Fine. Why are they trying to portray themselves as something else? Are they ashamed of their wealth? Apparently, cause they keep trying to portray themselves as something else, even though they just can't stop being themselves (building an elevator for their cars)
This is what drives me and others nuts! Republicans value wealthy people and worship wealthy, successfully wealthy people to the point where most of their policy is geared towards the wealthy, yet take offense if we point out that they are wealthy people who enjoy the fruits of wealth! And don't even try to compare their wealth with the Obama's. the Obama's aren't building elevators for their cars. This is just a completely different stratosphere of wealth. Not that the Obama's wouldn't do that if they had that kind of wealth, they simply don't.
The point is, Romney doesn't realize that most of us would respect him more if he just 'was' as he is and quit pretending he is something else. It's just so phony. It's not the wealth that turns off people, it's the phoniness. Don't talk excessively about it, or flaunt it, but don't try to hide it, or pretend it doesn't exist either. Just be who you are.
But even his campaign manager said he is an etch 'o sketch, re-booting and revising as needed.
But it doesn't make her qualified as an economic advisor on working women, does it. It does perhaps make her somewhat of an expert on the struggles of living with a medical condition, which actually could have been a factor in his implementing a successful health care plan for his state, which was the inspiration for Obama's health care plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildflower
Now, if he says he went to her for advise in that, I would agree she was an important, credible advisor. But, considering how fast he is running away from one of the very successful programs he put in place, I'm guessing he won't be pointing out her creds in that. Unfortunate, really. I can guess she was very instrumental in his decisions for Mass Health care.
Exactly! I'm sure he said that to try to prove his 'concern' for woman's issues, considering the republican war on women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
But you know, if she really does have MS, then she could be an actual, credible advisor on the issues of living with health issues, personally (although she still isn't having to choose between medicine or groceries). These are issues that are pretty much front and center right now, and very important to everyone, not just women. so if he wants to give her a purpose, or a role in his campaign, then why not use her in that way? Why not speak of her in this appropriate, credible role? Well, this tells me he is just using her as window dressing, a buffer between him and angry women. He's not consulting her for anything, and that's just sad. Because he could, apparently, and chooses instead to phony her as some working woman's economic advisor.
I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, he isn't telling the truth about her input and advise, because it has to do with the Mass health care laws, which are successful, but NOT REPUBLICAN, therefore taboo to discuss.
Sure, but you aren't being held out as an advisor to a Mexican Presidential candidate on the issues facing rural Mexicans. If you were, I am sure a Mexican pundit would point out how silly that was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
It's pure politics. The American right saw this as an opportunity to score some points. Ditto the birth control thing. The American left saw it as an opportunity to score political points. Mitt Romney isn't taking away anyone's birth control, and Obama isn't taking away anyone's guns or Bibles. They are peripheral side-show issues that are abused to garner sympathy and support for the real issues - the economic ones.
Well, if we are angrily debating the "mommy wars", and nitpicking as to whether Ann Romney had nannies or not, we AREN'T noticing that the Romney campaign didn't even know what its position WAS on the Lily Ledbetter law when asked, the Republicans have been actively espousing positions that would strip health benefits from women, make invasive and demeaning requirements before they would be allowed to obtain an abortion, had little interest in the still major pay gaps between men and women, etc., or even for anyone to notice that it would be pretty impossible for Ann Romney to serve as an advisor to her husband on the difficulties facing working mothers, especially those of low income who would be disproportionally affected by the changes the Republicans want to make.
I'm sure that there ARE areas in which Ann Romney could be an excellent advisor for her husband, in dealing with a chronic illness, for example, and perhaps pointing out that as difficult as that is for her, how much MORE difficult it might be for other women with the same condition, but without access to good health insurance, money, etc.
Ann Romney seems to be a very nice woman who has certainly been an excellent traditional wife to her husband, and raised five fine sons. But how that in any way makes her someone a Presidential candidate should turn to to explore how public policies affect women working outside the home and mothers of very limited means who MUST both mother and work outside jobs, even more than one to survive, is ridiculous. One would think Romney would talk to women himself.
Everybody in power on the Republican side understands this is a side show.....but guess what? It's working......we have pages and pages of discussion, pitting working women against stay at home moms, arguing the mommy wars that should have been settled long ago, while issues that affect ALL women are being ignored. Which is just what they want.
I really hope that women are way smarter than this. All of 'em. Even conservative women, especially those of limited means have to deal with access to health care, having their reproductive care needs met, whether or not they get paid differently (less) than a man for the same work, whether they will be saddled with more expense and care of the elderly if cuts are made to Medicaid and Medicare, etc.
I think I am :). I slam Obama. But really I don't care if someone goes into a voting booth and votes Obama, I care little more what they do there for the Presidential vote, than I care what they do when behind a bathroom stall (and it's about as appealing!). The game is rigged and the lower down you go the more influence you actually have - house members are more important to vote for than President! I just hope they don't go sliding down the chain of cognitive dissonance and needing to justify thier choice, to thinking that because they vote for someone for President they can't see the riggedness of the game and how corrupt many of the policies we get are regardless of who is in office.Quote:
I really hope that women are way smarter than this. All of 'em.
I see most of the Republican agenda as being even worse (except for Ron Paul, Ron would be interesting, he's really really good on the issues he's really good on and his pure libertarian agenda might be surprisingly better in some areas than much of the corporatism we have - remember things like BP are not only very poorly regulated -which they were for sure! - but are also pure corporatism). But the only reason I could see voting Romney is he's the devil we don't know (and the devil we do know is pretty aweful, but it doesn't mean a random coin toss is going to be any better, and what is more random than Romney's positions on anything from day to day? And some of the money that backs him may be even worse than the money backing Obama - Obama is Goldman Sachs and so on, but Romney might be more Exxon etc.). But a Romney presidency might wake some conscientious objectors on the left up from 4 years of comma - suddenly they will start caring about civil liberties and the wars and the environment and so on. And of course I am supportive of anyone choosing a 3rd party vote. I dont' support not voting, the only message that sends is apathy.
The problem is all issues are niche issues. Birth control is surely a niche issue because most people can afford their own birth control (and from one step of remove 3rd party payers in medicine are far from a proven win long term). The economy strikes broader because there are a LOT of unemployed and some businesses are also in trouble. So it's definitely why a lot more people are going to care about the economy than birth control (or should IMO). It doesn't really have a strong effect on the employed (the lack of bargaining power with employers is somewhat offset by the lack of inflation etc.), but the swath of people who lost jobs was cut wide, so people know people affected (I surely do) and lots of people could see themselves in that situation and a job is so basic, it's not just that without a job you can't afford birth control, it's that without a job you kinda can't afford anything!
Personally, I want people to focus on the big picture, that without a habitable planet, um nothing. The environment should be a huge issue IMO. But it's not. And partly (the understandable part) is because people are so overwhelmed with their own survival they can't see it. If people become Democratic partisans (partisans and not just lesser of two evilist) over certain government benefits it is in that case because they badly need them. And to such people you can't point out the fact that Obama is drone bombing and continuing and starting wars, and claims the right to kill anyone, and signs NDAA, and is rather lame though perhaps lesser of two evils on even liberal issues like the environment (fracking, tar sands, etc. continue) and even benefits etc.. The priviledged people who know better and earn more (and I've always been such even when unemployed and scared) who also can't see this have no excuses! But so many people have no money or have no time or both, how do you make them care about climate change even though it's hitting them over the head, how do you make them understand resource wars even though that represents what so much of what our taxes go to and will not even be debated? Heck how do you get most of the populus to even read like a few books a year :\ Movements like OWS is the only real awareness raising we have.
sure they won't get this with an Obama 2nd term? Remember Obama put those cuts on the table.Quote:
whether they will be saddled with more expense and care of the elderly if cuts are made to Medicaid and Medicare, etc.
The only conclusion I'm able to make from this thread is that any Republican candidate is going to have an extremely difficult time finding an adviser on women's issues who is both qualified to analyze policy at a national level AND be mainstream female enough to please anyone who is a little less conservative. One more scrap for the partisan politics heap.
The Medicare cuts that Obama put on the table had much more to do with reining in the Medicare Advantage program which was SUPPOSED to save money, but has actually increased costs and reduced quality of care because the companies were using it as a cash cow and pulling in profits in administrative costs that were far above the Medicare program itself. It's handy for Republicans to yell "Obama wanted to cut XXXXX from Medicare" without anyone recognizing that the cuts that were proposed actually IMPROVED care and access, and cut down on high administrative expenses for the Advantage programs. Not that facts have much traction in any of this election business............
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-cut-medicare/
The conservative position on stay at home moms always has been beyond bizarre. Conservatism: has there ever been an ideology that more worshiped money making and labor in the formal economy like ever ever in human history? Only industrialized country with no mandatory vacation policy. Overtime laws vastly undermined by the salaried exception (low level managers at restaurant CHAINS are counted as "management" not to mention most professional cubical dwellers). Nothing but work constantly and all the time (what you want 2 or 3 weeks vacation a year? you want a 40 hour week? why you are crazy ... ack a welfare mother is not working somewhere, oh noes!) and yet special exceptions for stay at home moms in their ideology for some reason (I'm not sure what, I think it has to do with woman's inferiority - since formal labor is what they REALLY respect). Is our labor policy really going to be determined mostly by people who don't work? They are no more experts to speak against mandatory vacation time or overtime laws, than childless poeple are the experts on say a law mandating cloth diapers!