“Together, we are working to establish a global enterprise and previously announced our intent to return Jeep production to China, the world’s largest auto market, in order to satisfy local market demand, which would not otherwise be accessible.” Sergio Marchionne, head of Fiat-Chrysler, in an official Chrysler LLC blog post dated 10/30/2012.
The salient line from Romney’s ad: “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China.”
I don’t see a disagreement between the two. Do you?
The MSM says Romney said ALL Jeep production is moving to China, or that the US Jeep plants are shutting down. I didn’t hear anything like that in the ad. No even by inference. Did you?
I don’t see a refutation, I don’t see a slam, I don’t see a repudiation. Heck, I see a verification, a validation. Am I the only one seeing this?
It was nothing if not audacious. Second wave feminists passed withering judgments on any woman who dared to live her life as she saw fit. They despised and shunned women who refused to sacrifice their lives to the feminist cause.
This one is particularly vicious and has been going on a lot longer than just since The One was crowned. It’s odd that the Philanderer in Chief and Sandra Fluke’s Sugar Daddy are the lefts ideal men. They aren’t even enablers, these two are victimizers of woman, taking what they can to ensure their own satisfaction, be it political or otherwise.
Yes, a little bit of my outrage over this particular point is that I see my own mother’s life choices and those of my wife questioned in the same questioning of Ann Romney and other women who choose of their own free will to live at home and devote their entire lives to making a home and raising children. It is not the only great and noble endeavor a woman may have, but it is certainly one they may choose.
Isn’t the crux of true feminism “be all you desire”? Isn’t that what we want for our daughters and mothers and wives and sisters? The ideology that says that a woman may be anything she chooses except X is an ideology that seeks to limit women, not empower them. When a woman is forbidden to choose a particular course of life simply because it isn’t approved by the current guardians of our culture, that woman is made a victim. Despite what some people want to think, nobody on the right side of the aisle wants to prevent a woman from succeeding in business, in industry, in the office, and on top of that, we allow women the freedom to choose to be whatever they desire, even if that desire is to be a home maker. And shame upon those who tell women they cannot do that.
Exhibit C: Fear-mongering over the possible outcomes of this election.
The Center for American Progress has an extensive article detailing how they believe Romney will be bad for women. Among their claims are the ideas that Romney would “erode access to contraception and threaten its legality”, and “would deny women paid sick days and family and medical leave”. You can watch videos videos of supporters at Obama rallies claiming that Romney would return women’s rights to 1512. And then there’s the hugely broadcast line from the 2nd debate where we learned that Romney has binders full of women.
I suppose if you repeat a lie often enough, enough people start to believe it’s the truth. And the various lies regarding Republicans, Romney, and the Right in general regarding women have certainly been repeated ad nauseum, especially of late in these increasingly desperate-sounding and waning days of the Obama presidency. No Republican will stand in the way of a woman seeking contraception. What we will also will not do is assume that you need the help of the government to choose a contraceptive or purchase it. Most of them are available the counter and don’t cost very much. And instead of assuming women need their hands held through this process, Republicans generally assume women are quite capable of taking care of themselves with this and other issues regarding their reproductive health. In the MRCTV video linked above, at least the woman who claims women’s rights would go back to 1512 recognized she wouldn’t lose the right to vote. But then I’d ask her: What will you actually lose? It’s one thing to make a wild and highly inflammatory comment such as this flippantly, it’s quite another to have facts and figures the back up your claims. And regarding Romney’s binders full of women, the outrage over this line came from the party of Clinton and Kennedy, and as some noted, the women in Romney’s binders were being considered for C-level positions in a significant State, as opposed to Obama’s Julia and all the millions of women on the unemployment roles in President Obama’s America.
The War on Women is a crass and manufactured attempt to keep people in line and voting for the left’s morally, intellectually, and economically bankrupt positions in spite of their own true best interests.
If Romney wins, which seems increasingly likely, he must win by a landslide for the security of our nation.
More and more today people believe that the majority of the population agree with them. Call it part of our human capability of rationalization, blame the media echo chambers and liberal bastions of big cities where people can go their whole lives without meeting a single person they disagree with substantively. Whatever the cause, people, especially people on the left or supporting the left, think that they are a significant majority, and that people who don’t think the way they do are backward, ignorant, abusive, small, mean, vulgar, cave men, knuckle dragging, pea-brained, idiots, etc.
Recent polls indicate Romney is ahead by a slim but significant margin, but they also indicate that huge percentages of Obama supporters are absolutely convinced their candidate will win. It’s one thing to be confident, it’s another to be confident in the face of increasing evidence otherwise.
Or perhaps that’s the problem: They aren’t seeing any evidence otherwise because they tend to get their news from sources they agree with (Fox News? Fox News? Fox News?). They don’t know anybody personally who plans to vote for Romney. They never see them on TV except when there’s something odd or stupid to be said about them. There is nothing that intrudes into their consciousness which gives them any inkling of the level of support for Romney or the level antipathy and discontent there is with President Obama.
This spells a bit of trouble.
If you were absolutely convinced your candidate was going to win, and everybody you knew was planning on voting for him, and all you heard on the news and in papers and any other sources of information and infotainment was the idiocy of the challengers supporters and the ubiquity of your own candidates supporters, and then you watched the election returns come in and you saw your candidate lose, there would be hell to pay.
Fraud! You’d charge. You’d take to the streets. The Occupy movement and the Tea Party would be nothing compared to your outrage and that of your friends and neighbors and everybody else who voted for your candidate.
This is why, when Romney wins, he must win by a landslide. It is not enough to say “I’m in a safe state, I’ll stay home because he’s already got our electoral college votes“. No, each and every person must and should vote because, if the election is anything but a landslide, even a victory for Romney will be a hollow one.
The first steps towards undoing the dissension and division the Great Uniter has foisted upon us will have to include those who thought he was the messiah recognizing they are not an insurmountable majority. They’ll have to recognize first that people exist who disagree with them, and then that those people are reasonable people with reasonable goals and reasonable reasons for having supported someone besides their beloved. Only once they realize the world is populated with all kinds of people will they begin to be able to accept they may not have a monopoly on common sense.
President Obama’s campaign saw fit to release this ad yesterday, and I’m still trying to figure out why. I don’t like assuming the worst about people, but it seems to me that in this case, the worst may be the most accurate.
A woman who thinks that voting for anybody validates her as a woman is a woman with a small view of herself. A woman who thinks that voting for a specific person as the only reasonable course because of her gender is a woman with a small view of womanhood.
As a man I cannot pretend to understand womanhood. As a married man I’ve been mostly disabused of any notion that I might come even close. But if my wife came to me and told me she had to vote for Romney in order to validate herself as a woman, she and I would have a deep discussion about what she thinks it means to be a woman.
Heck, if an ad was released showing a woman claiming that a vote for Romney was the only thing a woman could reasonable do and still call herself a woman, leaving out all the stuff about the “first time” and other sexual innuendo, there would be hell to pay whether it was released by the Romney campaign or simply some over-enthused supporter.
In short, I hope Lena comes to recognize her value and validity as a person stem from the fact she is a person, and that her value and validity as a woman stem from the fact that she is a woman, and that neither of those have anything whatsoever to do with whose name she punches on the voting card every four years.
At least she appears to have had a slight smidgen of decency and has admitted that Romney was correct in asserting that the President indeed did not call the murder of our ambassador to Libya an act of terror until weeks later. Nevertheless, Candy Crowley performed a profound disservice to herself and to you and me and the world when she carried water for the President and attempted to defend his indefensible actions on Libya during last night’s debate.
This will hurt Barack Obama over time. Had Candy Crowley not intervened, Romney would have made his point. But it would have been one point in the debate. This elevated the issue. This story is going to get bigger now because of this.
Me? I’m interested in what Fact Checkers will now be able to say regarding this point. I imagined they’d see the words “act of terror” in the rose garden speech transcript and attempt a jig on their Romney’s effigy’s grave, but with THE MODERATOR having walked herself back, some of their fire may have been stolen.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.