Umm, except that the story neglects to mention that Gillespie left the firm in 2007 to work for George Bush right after CAHR was formed and it appears that he himself never lobbied for an individual mandate.
Wait, you mean a candidate for president may have hired an advisor who may or may not agree with 100% of the candidate's positions? Stop the presses!
It's still a nice find.
Oh, and Boz, is that like the right wing conspiracy theorists accusing the White House of orchestrating the Fluke issue because she is represented by Anita Dunn's firm, SKDKnickerbocker, though Fluke is not a Dunn client, and at the time of the testimony, had never met Ms. Fluke? Just wondering....
Who Dat! Oh please let me be, I have to be, schizophrenic me!
I don't care if it's a conservative paper, a liberal paper or somewhere in between.
The person who wrote that story barely rates above gossip magazine proofreader. He looked at some names, dates and press releases and said: "oooh, juicy!" without even bothering to look into any of the details. Clearly, he did not attempt to contact Gillespie, his former firm or the Romney campaign for clarification.
Tim Carney gets awarded zero points and may God have mercy blah, blah, blah.
Also, FWIW, I have no idea who are the right wing conspiracy theorists to whom you refer. I have never even heard that accusation. I don't doubt someone somewhere made the charge, but I hardly think it's in the mainstream of conservative thinking.
Also, also: there is a big difference between a political operative trying to generate some partisan heat, which is in their daily job description, and a so-called "reporter" ginning up fictions.
If there are conservative reporters, newscasters or journalists making the case that you describe, I will happily call them out too.
"You'd be crazy NOT to!" -- Donagh Gilhooly, bartender and wisest of men
I don't care if it's a conservative paper, a liberal paper or somewhere in between.
The person who wrote that story barely rates above gossip magazine proofreader. He looked at some names, dates and press releases and said: "oooh, juicy!" without even bothering to look into any of the details. Clearly, he did not attempt to contact Gillespie, his former firm or the Romney campaign for clarification.
Tim Carney gets awarded zero points and may God have mercy blah, blah, blah.
Also, FWIW, I have no idea who are the right wing conspiracy theorists to whom you refer. I have never even heard that accusation. I don't doubt someone somewhere made the charge, but I hardly think it's in the mainstream of conservative thinking.
Also, also: there is a big difference between a political operative trying to generate some partisan heat, which is in their daily job description, and a so-called "reporter" ginning up fictions.
If there are conservative reporters, newscasters or journalists making the case that you describe, I will happily call them out too.
See Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh for starters.
Who Dat! Oh please let me be, I have to be, schizophrenic me!
EDIT: Oops, sorry. I didn't see your smiley. I thought you were serious.
Really? I thought Reince Priebus did a superlative job on MSNBC yesterday completely refuting all of the false memes of the "War on Women." And he didn't back down or give one inch on any of them, including the War on Caterpillars comment (which I thought was pretty darn funny, even if others didn't)
But I will agree with quickplay on one matter: faux outrage abounds and it knows no political party. It's rather nauseating. Obviously, I'm more attuned to the faux outrage that comes from the left (so many empty chairs to interrogate!), but I fully recognize that the right holds their own and then some when it comes to that.
Don't get me wrong. It's been fun to watch Democrats try to walk back and squirm around Hillary Rosen's poor choice of words. (I have consumed far too much popcorn watching the beads of sweat on Jay Carney's forehead.) Just as I am sure it was fun for liberals to watch conservatives do the same with respect to Rush Limbaugh.
But in the end, it's much ado about very, very little, if not nothing. (In both cases.)
Or, as Erick Erickson put it this morning, "I'm sorry. I refuse to be your outrage pimp on this issue." ;D
"You'd be crazy NOT to!" -- Donagh Gilhooly, bartender and wisest of men
Hilary Rosen sucks. The stuff she did as head of the RIAA was downright awful, I wish she wasn't a Democrat, and I hope she goes away forever.
Not that anyone should make fun of anyone else for staying at home with kids, but then you get fired/quit from your high powered job at the RIAA and say it's to spend more time with your family and then make fun of housewives, you are a ridiculous, awful hypocrite.
But in the end, it's much ado about very, very little, if not nothing. (In both cases.)
Actually I might disagree with you a little. Just as the "outrage" over contraception was made up, it did move the needle with women and the suburban soccer moms Obama has to have. This dust up should be just as made up but I expect will have the same effect to move the needle with the soccer moms back to the middle. Anywhere near 50/50 with that group and Obama is toast.
Races shouldn't be decided on stuff like that but history says otherwise. Long way to go but if this blunts the "war on women" argument it could be decisive.
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 13, 2012 12:47:36 GMT -5
I believe that one, somewhat off the cuff statement, by a talking head minor player in the hierarchy of things, will have far less influence on women as will the institutionalized position on this social issue adopted by Obama's opponents. Time will tell, I guess. As well, I do not believe her aim was to make fun of housewives.
Last Edit: Apr 13, 2012 12:54:37 GMT -5 by hoyainspirit
Who Dat! Oh please let me be, I have to be, schizophrenic me!
Don't get me wrong. It's been fun to watch Democrats try to walk back and squirm around Hillary Rosen's poor choice of words. (I have consumed far too much popcorn watching the beads of sweat on Jay Carney's forehead.) Just as I am sure it was fun for liberals to watch conservatives do the same with respect to Rush Limbaugh.
But in the end, it's much ado about very, very little, if not nothing. (In both cases.)
Or, as Erick Erickson put it this morning, "I'm sorry. I refuse to be your outrage pimp on this issue." ;D
Kudos.
I am so tired of people being offended. I am generally on the side of the PC police -- if a group of people wants you to call them something or not use a word, why not comply? It doesn't hurt you.
That said, when someone doesn't, it doesn't need outrage. Someone doesn't need firing. They don't need to be shot.
It's an outrage there is still slavery in the world. it's an outrage pre-teens are sent to war. It's an outrage that diseases rich nations have obliterated still kill hundreds of thousands. It's an outrage we have children going hungry. It's an outrage when an innocent man is convicted and a guilty one set free.
There are more than enough causes in this world.
Perhaps if we were all more outraged over these things instead of words, we'd get something fing done.
Stick and stones, people.
"It's in honor of my frat bro who died during hell week after passing out in a trough. I went to Syracuse."
On the one hand, we have one sentence from an idiot on a cable news program judging a presidential candidate's wife.
On the other, we have a statement made by an idiot on talk radio which drew attention to legislative hearings about actual United States policy. Both political parties actively participated in the contraception debate, both in the legislature and in the press, because the policy had, you know, actual consequences for American women, families, and businesses.
Personally, I'm upset (I wouldn't say outraged) that women's health clinics are closing throughout my state, and that the issue of women's health is now a political football in Texas (for which I blame both political parties). Rush and Rosen don't have anything to do with that. If you think feelings WRT women's reproductive health are "made up," stop and take a look at what's actually happening around the country.
For the record, I think the reaction to Rush's comments, by themselves, was overblown, but there was something actually happening behind them. There's nothing happening behind Rosen's comments besides preconceived notions of national Democrats failing to support "family values."
ON EDIT: Lest my comments above be misinterpreted, that's not to say that I don't think Rush's comments weren't horrible or that DeGioia's statement condemning them was unnecessary. I just don't think anyone should listen seriously to what Rush Limbaugh has to say on an issue of actual political value.
As for watcher's position that pandering to moms equals electoral success:
ps, I watching this at work and thus had the sound off. I have no idea what sound effects or voiceover there is. I imagine the former is awesome and the latter just ruins it.
Last Edit: Apr 13, 2012 15:30:23 GMT -5 by SFHoya99
"It's in honor of my frat bro who died during hell week after passing out in a trough. I went to Syracuse."
Is it just me or is this sort of ad becoming the norm? I've seen the Santorum Obamaville ads, and it seems like people keep throwing more and more ridiculous over-the-top imagery out there hoping for it to go viral. I don't think many of these have been very effective.
This is the first electoral analysis I've seen since Romney -- for all intents and purposes -- wrapped up the nomination (though I'll be honest, I haven't been looking too hard, so I'm sure there are others).
Seems pretty much on target to me.
Probably because Joe Lunardi and Andy Katz didn't write it.
