Girls - bodies or minds?

Just saw the 4everygirl campaign ad. It includes a line to the effect that girls need to know they are valued for more than their bodies. 

Yet we had a national party campaign for women's votes almost exclusively on sex. On the ability for these same girls to have free contraception and abortions. This was pushed as the *only* concern for women. 

Aren't these two messages working against each other? If girls are valuable for more than just their bodies, it would seem that in politics they should be treated as if they might just possibly have interests and concerns outside the ability to have consequence-less sex. If a major political party thinks that the only thing that will get women to vote is an appeal to their hormones, that party *is* valuing women only for their bodies.

Thoughts on the debate

The last post was just a very rough sort of minutes of the debate with a few of my own comments.

Thoughts:

the MSM is going to claim this as a glorious win for Ø.  He didn't fall apart, and someone actually trained him out of saying "uh" and "um" as every other word.  Though he did start "uh"ing a lot when starting his answer on Bengazi and Libya, which suggests to me that he was trying to remember which lie he was supposed to trot out.

He lied, or was at least creative with the facts on a number of occasions.  He claimed that the AZ immigration law allowed LEOs to pull people over just to check their papers with only a suspicion that they might be illegal.  I seem to recall that it was quite specific that that could NOT take place, the stop had to be for another, legal, reason, such as running a red light.  He lied about Romney's tax plan, and kept bringing up the $5T in cuts which wouldn't have anything to make them up, completely ignoring the fact that quite a few outfits, including some not notably conservative friendly have said that's false.  He's also ignoring the fact that every other time we've cut taxes, we've seen actual increases in the amount of revenue coming into the Fed.

All told, I think Romney held his own, but Obama managed to not be too petulant, and to speak well, so if you aren't a political junkee, you don't know which bits you shouldn't believe.

I don't know that this will turn things around for him, but they didn't hurt him.

I assume that the next debate must be the foreign policy one, and I hope Mitt can pound him on his failures in the Middle East.  He started on it well tonight, but we need more.

We also need to see more and more of the "These policies aren't working" type jabs.

And now I'm going to play a stupid Facebook game for a few minutes, and head off to bed! (I'm sure I'll have more to say on the debate tomorrow, but right now, I'm starting to see double, and it's not from drinking, more's the pity.)

Presidential debate #2.

These are rough notes from tonight.  I'm not going to go back and tidy them up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting backdrop.  An eagle with a ribbon saying "union and constitution forever".  Ø would have trouble if he really thought he had to support that.

Jeremy - as a soon to be graduate, can you assure me and my parents that I will be able to get a job?
Romney, finally, knows what it takes to get economy growing.  (lots of platitudes to begin with), knows what it takes to get jobs growing, and more jobs
ØØ: "Your future is bright." wants to build on the 5M jobs made in the last 39 months.  Jab to R wanting to let Detroit go bankrupt, 0 said no, we need to bet on America.  Standard lies.  Need to control our own energy, energy of the future, solar, wind, biofuels, reduce deficit in balanced way, wealthy to pay more, use money from wars to fix America
R: fewer people working today than when Ø took office.  President's policies have not worked, R has a 5-point plan to help people without jobs, will help to get rising incomes.
Points out that bankruptcy necessary for GM/Chevy to come out stronger.  Ø lying.  Says R didn't want bankruptcy to have any way for them to stay open.  Claiming that Rs policies are why middle class families in trouble.

Is it not the job of the energy department to get lower gas prices?  Ø highest oil and natural gas production in years, higher coal production and employment, but also have to look to the furture, why they doubled fuel efficiency standards, why the push for "wind, solar, biofuels", this why lowest oil imports in years. (forgetting that the depression might just have something to do with that).  Efficient energy, need to reduce demand.
R: lets look at policies, not rhetoric.  Oil production down on federal land, same with gas, because licenses and permits cut in half.  Romney uses "renewables".  Doesn't need a president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, gas, or coal.  R wants to see NA energy independent within 8 years.  more drilling, more permits, Keystone pipeline,
Candy: is this $4/gallon the new normal?  Is it in the gov't role to bring it down?
Ø: we are using oil more efficiently, says drilling more on federal lands than we did under W.
Claims Romney wrong, Romney stating that production on federal lands down, Ø keeps saying, no we're producing more.
Romney also talking about energy secure.
Candy: if policy working, gas prices would be down? Ø, claims that the reason gas prices are up is because the economy is getting better.  Claims that we've built enough pipelines already.  Claiming that people creating wind power in co and ia, tax credits.
Candy, actually stopped president.

Romney tax plan, will not reduce share of taxes collected by higher 5%, nor will he raise taxes on the middle.
Ø, philosophy on taxes simple. give the middle a break, has cut taxes for the middle and small businesses.  If reducing deficit a moral obligation, has to cut spending, and raise taxes on the higher end.
R: more women in poverty than in 2009.
Candy: Romney just wants to give tax cuts only to middle class OK? Obama, no.
Oh God, big bird.
Romney - math adds up, I've run businesses and made it add up, I ran the olympics and it added up, I ran MA and it added up.  I've balanced budgets my entire life.

Young woman wanting to know what president going to do to remove inequalities in the workplace, that women only make 72 cents on the dollar.
Ø touting Lilly Ledbetter.
Romney, points out that women need more flexible schedules, women have lost more jobs than men over this administration.
Oh, god, women's health care.  "Romney wants politicians in DC deciding women's health care". Millions of women rely on PP for cancer screenings, for contraception, it's a pocket book issue.
True that not just women's issues, but family issues.

Questioner, worries about return to the Bush years. What difference between R and Bush?
energy independence, wants to curtail trade with china, add more with SA, balanced budget,  (brought up .5T deficits outrageous, and now 1T), championing small business over big business.
Ø: First uh of the evening, but almost not there.  Digging way out of policies to get the top doing well middle not so well. 5.2M new jobs over last 3 years.  Romney last person who will get tough on china. A task force on trade, twice as many cases against unfair trade practices. GB didn't want to turn medicare into a voucher, didn't suggest defunding PP, didn't plan to deport lots of folks.  Social policy too extreme.

Black voter asking Ø why should he vote for him again. Says cut taxes, end war in Iraq, focus on al-qaedi OBL dead. Health care reform so can't be jerked around by insurance, toughest wall street reforms since the 30s, saved an auto industry.  Reducing deficit in a sensible way, using savings from war to put people back to work.  Has kept his commitments, and those he didn't, not for lack of trying, and will do them in his second.  Comparing Øcare to Romneycare. think whose promises will be better for you.
R: You know what you will get if you elect Ø.  Where is the plan for reforming medicare and SS? Where the immigration plan? Deficit doubled, not halved. Deductions in middle class health insurance premiums going up, not down.  President wants to do well, but his policies not doing that.  Ø a great speaker, but now we have plans to look at.

What to do with illegal immigrants?
R: wants to make it easier to come here legally, 4M in line waiting, won't grant amnesty, doesn't want magnets for those here illegally, kids of those here illegally, should have a pathway to become a permanent resident.  Ø didn't do it, though he promised, and he had a (D) congress.
Ø: second "uh".  Have said we need to fix a broken system, done what he can on his own, tried to do stuff with congress.  Has made it easier to get here legally.  Put more border patrol on, and flow of illegals lowest in 40 years (perhaps because economy bad), need to go after the illegals who are criminals, not students.  For young people who have grown up here, need to give a pathway to citizenship, has done it administratively.  Lies about AZ law, they can't stop people just because they look illegal.
R explain self-deportation.  Says that e-verify a model for the nation, not the whole law.  Why hasn't the president explained why he didn't do the law for illegals in his first year that he promised.
Ø, republicans in congress need to get serious about immigration.

Question about who denied extra security in Benghazi?
Ø, not just reps of US, but reps of Obama, so no one more concerned.  Lots of uhs..  Beef up security throughout the region, find out what happened, so won't happen again, find out who did it so we could get them.  Says he did this while on the phone hearing about the attack as it went on.  Attacking Romney for his statement that evening.
R: Standard boiler plate.  Found it most troubling that the day after the ambassador assassinated, President flew to fundraiser in Vegas. Stuff that happening suggests that president's policies in the ME not working. Watching President's policies unravelling.
Ø going on about "we're going to hunt down those responsible for this crime". Upset, claims that anyone on his team would play politics with foreign policy is offensive.

Ask of president, what doing to keep assault weapons out of hands of criminals.  "Weapons designed for our soldiers in war theaters don't belong on their streets".  Admits that most violence in Chicago not assault weapons.  That a lot of causes of violence.  wants a comprehensive strategy, wants automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
R: we need to enforce our current laws, not new ones, and work on the culture of violence.
Families, two parent families increases opportunities for children and lessons odds of poverty.  F&F, can't imagine why this put in place, thinks american people would like to see it investigated fully.  CC trying to bring question back to question of unbanned weapons.  Candy cutting away from F&F.
Ø: R for awban before against it.  Against it to get NRA endorsement.  More teachers will cut gun voilence.

Outsourcing of jobs, what plans to bring them back?
R: We have made it less attractive to stay than to go.  As president, will work to make it more attractive to stay or come back.  Trickle down gov't has never worked.  Wants us to be the most attractive place for businesses of all sizes.  Also need to make sure all countries we trade with need to play fair.  China has been a currency manipulator for years, Ø refuses to label them that.  R will do so, so can impose tariffs if need be.  Key to bringing back jobs, not just punishing others, but make attractive, lower tax rates - Canada 15%, US 35%, where would you rather be? Regulations have quadrupled in last 4 years. Want regulators to encourage not crush business. Øcare a deterrent to hiring.
Ø we need to create jobs, need to lower corporate tax rates, but have different ideas on how to do this.
Claims that we should be taxing any money a company makes overseas here, without that tax people will move jobs out of country.
R we can compete with any country if playing field level, we have to make us more attractive. President's characterization of R's plan false.
Ø, some jobs won't come back, the low wage, low skill.  We don't want them, we need best science and research.  Claims that if we don't invest in research we won't get the next Apple (did Jobs get any fed money? I don't think so).)R: gov't doesn't create jobs!

What do you believe is the american people's greatest misperception about you as man and candidate?
R: I care about 100% of americans, I want them all to have bright and prosperous future, I care for all our children. I want to help with my business experience.  Passion from belief in God and we all God's children. we don't have to settle for what we are going through.  Don't have to settle for $4gas, 47M on food stamps, 23M unemployed.
Ø I don't believe that gov't creates jobs. free enterprise greatest job engine, believes in risk takers being rewarded, but everyone needs to have a fair shot, and pay their fair share.  We all need to play by the same rules. Fundamental difference in how we need to move this country forward.  47% means Romney talking about veterans and retirees, soldiers, 47% think of themselves os victims? I want to fight for them, and when they succeed we all succeed.  All generations need the same opportunities as previous ones.

Debate!

Which I will not be watching.  I'll get to read about it tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow. And the day after that.  And the day after that day after.  I'll get to see plenty of clips.

But by not watching, I won't be screaming at Ø, I won't have to listen to his condescending tone of voice, and his likely strings of "uhhh"s since he won't have a teleprompter.

The debates aren't going to change my decision on voting against Ø, and watching it in real time will raise my blood pressure. So for my mental health I'm going to watch Castle reruns, and maybe check in at a few of my regular blog reads.  I suspect watching Castle will be much more relaxing.

Does Ø really want to lose the election?

His re-election team created an e-card for his Tumblr page.  And this is what they came up with.  

Of course it's now down the memory hole with apologies for not "properly vetting" posts.

But Ø's team actually has people on it who think this is appropriate, and not in the least offensive.

But it's offensive on so many levels.  First, do we really need to go around talking about our "lady parts"?  My first thought was what happens if this shows up on a page you are at with your seven year old, but then I realized the only people who would be reading pages posting this sort of dreck with their seven year olds are the sort who think it's appropriate and don't have trouble telling their children stuff that isn't age appropriate.

Second, for the party which supposedly is "for women", it's incredibly demeaning to imply that the only thing we think is important is to be able to have consequence-less sex.  We don't care if we don't have jobs, we don't care if the few children we do bother to give birth to have a decent home, two parents, a decent education, or a hope of a decent job themselves, we just care that we can rut like animals without worrying about being punished by children.

I thought campaign stuff was supposed to make you want to vote for people, not run away, or even worse laugh at them.

Things to be angry about, part the zillionth.

Can you imagine the public outcry and outrage if this were being done by a Republican White House?

Obama urges companies to break federal law for his reelection

I've been hearing about this for a while, but no place "mainstream".  What are the odd that we'll hear about now from any of the so-called mainstream news outlets?

I would strongly suspect that I have a better chance of winning the lottery tonight than hearing about this on MSNBC.  I would still probably have a better chance if I didn't have a lottery ticket.

I think I need to steal Rachel Lucus's "Why I drink" label for this blog.

Edited to add: I just saw an article on the ABC blog which Jake Tapper is involved with.  Of course Jake is one of two or at most three journalists who seem to be willing to ignore their personal political leanings for actually delivering News.

Tired.

Last night, knowing full well that I had to get up a little after 6am for work, I didn't even end up in bed until after midnight, and then it took forever to fall asleep.

This morning as I was driving the younger child to school we looked up and saw a beautiful full or nearly full moon.  Which probably explains the sleep issues, since no one else in the family slept well either.

I got into work, took my antihistimines, and after two hours my face is starting to hurt again.  I have a work order request in to maintenance to check for mold and mildew from the flooding.  I suspect it will by a cool day in hell before they do check, and unless they find the toxic black mold the building won't get remediated, since very few years they think about tearing it down (it's from the '60s and built as well as you'd expect, i.e. not very).  I couldn't even get them to replace the rusting out window frames or even replace the cracked glass when they remodeled the area six years ago.  And if it's needed, it will cost much, much more than that.  Of course if they had replaced the windows, I'd be able to open them, and air the place out properly....

And politics is getting tiring.  I keep reading it, and it's just a constant drum beat of how great the (D)s are doing, and how the (R)s are losing so badly.  Lots of crappy polls, like the latest from Public Policy Polling for Connecticut, where Ø is leading by 7, but if you fixed the internals he'd probably be losing. They did poll nearly twice as many (D)s as (R)s, which is correct for this state, but there should have been even more (I)s than (D)s.  Instead they only had about 20%(I), less than their (R) representation.  But you can't unskew the poll because they do their Romney/Obama internals by how the respondent listed themselves on the Very Liberal/Somewhat Liberal/Moderate/Somewhat Conservative/Very Conservative continuum, which can't really be mapped to where the (I)s live very well.  Though if they are mostly Moderate, that would suggest that if you unskewed it, Romney would be winning.

But I'm getting too tired of it all.  I'm going to work the polls, I'm going to vote the way I think best, and I'm going to hope that the perception the media is spinning is just that, spin.

Or we are really, really screwed.

Partisan stupidity.

I just saw this ad on CBS out of Hartford this evening. The whole damn thing is a lie, because it's based on the premise that Romney/Ryan are planning to do away with Medicare for current seniors, all to scare CT seniors to vote for Ø and the (D)s.

In announcing the release of the ad, the DCCC said, "The ad highlights that Roraback is running on the ticket with the Republican plan to end Medicare and force Connecticut seniors to pay $6,400 more every year to fund tax breaks for millionaires."

And then I find that the (R) candidate for CT-5, whom the ad targets by name, puts out a press release which starts out just fine, threatening to sue CT TV stations which air the ad, due to the provable falsehoods in it

“Without a doubt, the Advertisement contains false information deliberately intended to mislead Connecticut voters and defame Roraback’s reputation. Because the Advertisement conveys messages that are plainly disproven by fact, we respectfully demand that your station immediately stop airing the Advertisement and that no further airings of this misleading content be allowed on your station.”

and then:

The letter says that the ad, which says “Meet Washington’s tea party Republicans,” defames Roraback’s character and falsely claims that Roraback supports budget proposals from Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan.

I mean really, for the folks who vote (R), a primary reason is because we want people who will support plans to try save the country's financial situation. And here is a candidate claiming that he is being defamed by being connected with the plans of those at the top of his ticket. 

Kim Du Toit used to refer to the Democrats as the Evil Party and the Republicans as the Stupid Party. The (R)s are working hard to prove him right.

Funny if it wasn't so close to the truth....

Thanks to a link from a comment at Buttercup's I found this:

Given some of Matt's other stuff, I'm guessing that he's picking up the mantle from Ray Stevens.

Though Ray still seems to be going pretty strong too.

The News (and procrastination)

So, doing a final news check before trying to research brain death and hypothermia one more time, I did my daily check of poltico's polling page.

They haven't had a new Connecticut poll for over three weeks.  The last ones had had Ø up by about 7, even in registered voter polls.  (He won this state in '08 by 22).

Low and behold they have a new poll from the Hartford Current and UConn which puts Ø up by 23.  It claims to be likely voters, but we can't find any links to the poll to see the methodology or the breakdown.  Surprise.  One of the commenters at the HC site actually brought this up.  I was quite heartened by the number of comments that were critical of the poll and Ø.

So I'll keep hunting for the internals, and I bet they're skewed enough to make the poll a meaningless partisan propaganda tool, useful in ginning up some (D) enthusiasm and as an attempt at making (R)s so despondent they stay home.