GOP Nominee 2012 - Pt. 5

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even my staunch conservative dad who is an Eastwood fan is mixed about that speech. He felt he made some good points, but the whole speech was too awkward.

The Daily Show did a segment on Friday about this, naming it "The Old Man and the Seat".
 
Yes, I would say the economy gives women a reason to vote for him. If you believe he can make it better, or that anyone but Obama can. The other stuff, well it gives many women pause.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- There's been no shortage of musing over Mitt Romney's failure to win over female voters. The gender gap is pronounced, and with the efforts of the president's political team, growing wider. Romney has been criticized for his failure to speak out in support of equal pay for equal work, he's been tied to some of his party's more hardline positions on abortion, and has been caricatured as a relic of a bygone era in which women put career ambitions aside.

But for all the talk of Romney's trouble among women voters, no Democrat has put it in the terms that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright did in an interview with The Huffington Post on Monday.

"I'm not sure I'm going to state this exactly right," she said, sitting amidst a sea of convention-related activity and daytime wine drinkers in the Westin hotel lobby in downtown Charlotte. "But I think there are some who believe they are actually protecting women, you know, and that it is better for women to be taken care of. I think women want to take care of themselves, and I think having a voice in how that is done is very important. And frankly, I don’t understand -- I mean, I'm obviously a card-carrying Democrat -- but I can't understand why any woman would want to vote for Mitt Romney, except maybe Mrs. Romney."

Albright then revised her pool of rationally thinking female Romney supporters to include his five daughters-in-law, an obvious but hardly generous expansion. Even with the rhetorical flair, however, Albright's comments reflect a genuine disturbance that many Democrats -- women and men -- feel about the tone of the discussion of women's issues during the course of the campaign.

The former secretary of State, who has been an outspoken advocate for women in the workplace, said she found the assertion by Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) that a rape victim can shut down her body to avoid pregnancy to be "one of the more outrageous" comments she's witnessed in her 75 years.

"It was appalling and disgusting," she said. "But if I may say so, the things that he said in one form or another are in the Republican platform. So [while Republicans are] saying he is a nutcase and they have to move away from him, they did not move away from their platform."

Her reference was to language in the GOP platform that outlaws abortion even in cases of rape or incest. It's a policy that Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has embraced throughout his career, before distancing himself in the wake of Akin's remarks. Romney has always supported such exceptions. Even so, Albright argued, he had "become captive to a party that does in fact think that women should not have voices."

This is about as harsh an indictment as has been leveled by a major Democratic figure at the Republican Party and its nominee. And in conjuring up images of women being pushed into figurative (if not literal) silence, Albright invited some obvious pushback. The current state of the economy hasn't exactly allowed women to warm up their vocal cords.

"I’m guessing the millions of American women unemployed, underemployed or constantly worrying about filling the gas tank or put food on the table can think of a few reasons to make sure Barack Obama isn't our president for another four years," said Kirsten Kukowski, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

Aware of the gender gap, Romney's campaign gave several Republican women primetime speaking roles at his party's recently completed convention, including his wife, Ann, who spoke about the trials that came with their marriage and raising five kids, in addition to declaring in one of the conventions more indelible moments, "I love you, women."

It will, in all likelihood, take a bit more than a few speeches in support of Romney to make up the ground among women voters. A TIME/CNN poll of likely voters found Obama beating Romney by 12 and 10 points among women in Florida and North Carolina, respectively.
 
I thought Romney would have gotten a better bounce out of that convention. They did a pretty good job. Romney did not make any errors, he certainly picked his best wife to put front and center.
 
"I’m guessing the millions of American women unemployed, underemployed or constantly worrying about filling the gas tank or put food on the table can think of a few reasons to make sure Barack Obama isn't our president for another four years," said Kirsten Kukowski, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

Probably. But I've still yet to hear what exactly Romney's plan to fix that situation would be. I don't see anything in the Republican platform that would guarantee me that we'd see any sort of improvement if he were in office.

Anywho, yeah, I think that "protected" argument is spot on. There's a real patronizing attitude regarding women that the GOP seems to have going on (I always got that feeling when I'd hear Palin talk. They wanted her simply because the Democrats had a woman in their ranks, and they knew Palin wasn't qualified. She was there to look pretty and say her silly things, and then the male politicians come in and cover for her mistakes).

And yeah, their whole attitude regarding abortion and birth control has been ignorant at best, and downright disturbing at worst. If they want to try and win women to their side, maybe shut up with the stupid, offensive rape comments that seem to constantly fall from their mouths, and have some women actually come in and discuss this issue. They're the party of small government, it'd be really interesting to see some female politicians who actually advocate said small government and focus on keeping this issue a personal one. And they can still be pro-life without talking about banning abortion outright.

But of course, that would mean they might actually have to start advocating things like making birth control more available*, or making sure women who are pregnant or of an age where they can be pregnant can be taken care of financially so they can have more options available to them, and maybe expanding sex education beyond abstinence-only. And somehow, I think the chances of them changing their views on those topics anytime soon are pretty slim.

(*I still fail to understand how people who are so against abortion can simultaneously oppose anything a woman can do that would avoid her getting pregnant in the first place until she's ready. Sounds like a pretty surefire way for a woman to be less likely to have to worry about an abortion to me, but I guess that's just crazy talk or something.)
 
Even my staunch conservative dad who is an Eastwood fan is mixed about that speech. He felt he made some good points, but the whole speech was too awkward.

Eastwood was great because he spoke politics like most of us do; no TelePrompTer, no focus group tested phrases, no "stay on message" restraints and with blunt honesty. And in doing so pissed off all the right people -- Obama apologists and the GOP establishment and their inside-the-beltway consultants.
 
I'm not pissed off at all, I felt sorry for the guy. Can't imagine that devout Mormon Mitt was comfortable with Clint having the President tell him to f himself.

I'd love to see GOP reaction to a similar celebrity "speech" at the DNC.
 
And what you just did right there -- have an argument and yelling at people who don't exist and winning arguments with yourself -- was perhaps a deft and subtle way for Eastwood to indict the entire GOP.

He's many steps ahead, a great double agent.

He performed what the GOP has been doing since 2008 -- fearing people who dont exist.
 
And in doing so pissed off all the right people -- Obama apologists and the GOP establishment and their inside-the-beltway consultants.
This is easily the most frustrating thing I read from people on the right. You can't engage in a fucking debate because you think disagreement from the left proves you right, that if the "right people" are pissed off, it's because they're uncomfortable with your "truth." You think the argument is over the minute it starts.

If I never heard "pissed off the right people" again, I would be living a better life, one where I might actually be able to debate the merits of Clint Eastwood's rambling speech with someone who agrees with him.
 
Eastwood was great because he spoke politics like most of us do; no TelePrompTer, no focus group tested phrases, no "stay on message" restraints and with blunt honesty. And in doing so pissed off all the right people -- Obama apologists and the inside-the-beltway consultants and GOP establishment.


It took Eastwood to do something the "in the spotlight" American
comedians have failed to to do the past four years.

Slam and mock Obama.


:applaud:
 
Eastwood was great because he spoke politics like most of us do; no TelePrompTer, no focus group tested phrases, no "stay on message" restraints and with blunt honesty. And in doing so pissed off all the right people -- Obama apologists and the GOP establishment and their inside-the-beltway consultants.

I don't think you read my post clearly. I said even my very conservative father felt the speech was awkward. You seemed to have used my post as an excuse to trump Eastwood.
 
Here is what Eastwood said about Obama, in order:

- The Obama administration has not done enough to lower unemployment.
- Announced that he was going to close Guantanamo Bay and then decided not to, which Eastwood thought was the correct move.
- Maintained the war in Afghanistan despite the fact that the Russians had failed to maintain a presence there.
- Announced a date for removing troops from Iraq in the future instead of just pulling them all out that day.
- Obama is an attorney, and attorneys spend too much time weighing the issues.
- Obama has gone to universities to talk about student loans.

Is that an accurate list of his "criticisms" of Obama?
 
Eastwood was great because he spoke politics like most of us do; no TelePrompTer, no focus group tested phrases, no "stay on message" restraints and with blunt honesty. And in doing so pissed off all the right people -- Obama apologists and the GOP establishment and their inside-the-beltway consultants.

You're so cute when you're predictable :hug:
 
These conventions have become scripted, boring and phony. I heard some fine speeches last week but only Clint Eastwood made me laugh out loud (lol for you under-30 folks) and cheer.

"When somebody does not do the job, we gotta let 'em go." That's right!! It happens thousands of times every day in this country and the president is no different.
 
"When somebody does not do the job, we gotta let 'em go." That's right!! It happens thousands of times every day in this country and the president is no different.
This is not about that. This is about who is going to do a better job: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Now, you can make the argument that Obama's last four years aren't a great indicator of a success, but plenty will make the argument that Mitt Romney, who needed a bailout from the government to get Bain on track, who has been inconsistent in his policy positions, who hired a con artist as a running mate, might not be qualified either.
 
I don't think you read my post clearly. I said even my very conservative father felt the speech was awkward. You seemed to have used my post as an excuse to trump Eastwood.

I did use your post for just such a purpose. Sorry, I was gone for 5 days and needed a starting point.

For me, "awkward" broke through the pre-packaged "show."
 
Eastwood was great because he spoke politics like most of us do.


This doesn't speak particularly well of the much-vaunted "American people." I have a real problem with the way "most of us" speak of politics.

It took Eastwood to do something the "in the spotlight" American
comedians have failed to to do the past four years.

Slam and mock Obama.


:applaud:

Perhaps you'd like to share a scripture that supports your attitude towards the President. You might check out Romans 13:1 or 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

As much as I disliked President Bush's policies I never found it necessary to slam and mock him.

Bono uses a teleprompter for lyrics for songs he's sung 100 times before :shrug:

I did not know this.
 
INDY500 said:
Eastwood was great because he spoke politics like most of us do; no TelePrompTer, no focus group tested phrases, no "stay on message" restraints and with blunt honesty. And in doing so pissed off all the right people -- Obama apologists and the GOP establishment and their inside-the-beltway consultants.

I can assure you that he did not "speak politics" like anyone I've ever met, here or in real life, left, right, libertarian, or whatever.
 
I can assure you that he did not "speak politics" like anyone I've ever met, here or in real life, left, right, libertarian, or whatever.

I feel like Paul Ryan. Here's what I said and what you quoted:

Eastwood was great because he spoke politics like most of us do;

no TelePrompTer, no focus group tested phrases, no "stay on message" restraints and with blunt honesty.

Digitize, when you "speak politics":

Do you have a TelePrompTer? Do you practice or speak off the cuff?
Do you have a personal focus group?
Do you have "stay on message" rules when you talk or are your opinions your opinions?
Do you consider your speech "honest" or do you walk on eggshells when you talk politics?
 
Digitize, when you "speak politics":

Do you have a TelePrompTer? Do you practice or speak off the cuff?
Do you have a personal focus group?
Do you have "stay on message" rules when you talk or are your opinions your opinions?
Do you consider your speech "honest" or do you walk on eggshells when you talk politics?

No, but I do try to think before I speak (though try is the key word; I don't always succeed).
 
It took Eastwood to do something the "in the spotlight" American
comedians have failed to to do the past four years.

Slam and mock Obama.


:applaud:

I find this to be sad and rather pathetic. This president has been painted with a Hitler mustache, had a bone put through his nose, been called 'communist' 'muslim' 'jew hater' etc, had umpteen documentaries and books full of lies published about him, been called a liar on the public floor, been called "government ******", and we won't even go into the signs at the Tea Party rallies; yet you applaud a man that "slams and mocks" him. This is what the apparent "christ-like" base has turned into?

We've come a long way from the vilification of the Dixie Chicks, and all they said is that they weren't proud that he was from Texas.
 
Soledad O'Brien To Tea Party's Amy Kremer: Questioning Obama's Love Of America Is 'Code Word For Something Else' (VIDEO)

Now granted this panel seems a little lopsided and some will scream "media bias".

BUT this is a leader of one of the Tea Party organizations, and to me this sums up how much of this world views the Tea Party. She keeps repeating key phrases fed to her by the talking heads and she really doesn't understand what's going on. "One world", "doesn't love country the way WE do", "shining city on a hill", "leading from behind", "heritage"

My hope would be that some will open their eyes and see how empty this rhetoric is. I actually think limited government is a viable platform that deserves a place in the ongoing debate; it's just a shame that there are very few if any intellegent people that have acted as the mouthpiece for this movement. I think the Tea Party is a huge missed opportunity, they allowed their personal hatreds to take over and affect their platform(if it was truly their platform from the beginning) and taint the message.

If one can't see the "coded" message behind phrases like 'doesn't love the way WE do' and 'heritage' then I'm afraid there's no hope.
 
Agreed, there's no question we can certainly do to keep our government in check so it doesn't go overboard. The problem is that the Republican Party is so inconsistent on what exactly constitutes "limited government".

And yes, the whole "we love America more" thing is just disgusting and insulting. For god's sake, it's not a fucking competition, and daring to not wear a flag pin or daring to point out the country's flaws or whatever is NOT anti-American.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom