dagblog - Comments for "The Second Debate: In Pursuit of Women Voters"

Not much traffic this

Richard Day — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:01:57 +0000

In reply to The Second Debate: In Pursuit of Women Voters

Not much traffic this Thursday.

Another fine essay indeed!

I like jokes, I like mocking hypocrites.

But damn, you document the hypocrisy!!!

I agree that one should not

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:48:19 +0000

In reply to This is a summary of the

I agree that one should not accept any single source as settling this or any other matter. This information does not change my vote. I cited the Suskind account because he has a strong track record of reporting which has been borne out as accurate subsequently on Bush Administration shenanigans, is not at all anti-Obama or out to get him in some way like some are, wrote a sourced book, and interviewed a huge number of people with widely varying perspectives who were in a position to know what was going on, for it.

If I were speaking with some undecided voter for whom issues of concern to women are known to be important, given my commitments, I would focus on the policy differences, which are what are going to have direct impact on their and their families' lives. This is a crowd, I believe, that can at least handle, and in many cases seems to welcome, uncomfortable information.

This is a summary of the

Aunt Sam — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:19:50 +0000

In reply to Obama's White House, at least

This is a summary of the picture I got from reading Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men.......

IMO, it is seldom, if ever, valuable to accept one source as the only one upon which to consider as fact or the basis for judgment.

Again, IMO, to make a choice on an issue that has so many moving pieces, on one lone issue represents someone who is indeed not only a low information voter, but dare I say, one who chooses to be ignorant about the needs of the office and country.

I have little to no patience for women, or men, who have such a limited focus.

Obama's White House, at least

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:48:30 +0000

In reply to I would prefer that The

Obama's White House, at least for the first two years (when Summers, who in particular did not appear to get it although he showed too late signs that he might be changing his attitudes a wee bit, and Emanuel were there), was regarded by a number of senior women who worked there, people who did not have a reputation for being shrinking violets by any stretch, as a very inhospitable environment for women. A number of them felt shut out, ignored or steamrolled, apparently by Summers and Emanuel in particular. (This is a summary of the picture I got from reading Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men, whose title certainly foreshadows this theme in his book.) Suskind himself noted that some who he portrayed as having felt extremely frustrated while working there, such as Christina Romer, were quoted after the book came out painting a different and much less unfavorable picture of what it was like during their time working in the White House.)

On the comparative policy records of the two candidates one would think that should be an easy call to the degree the information gets out there, for anyone other than, perhaps, those who are anti-choice on abortion and take a feel-good purist approach to reducing the number of abortions. If that is the single issue that matters most to you, and you see it as an opportunity to take a consequence-free moral stand, on a single issue, instead of as a choice between which sets of policies have been shown to actually reduce the number of abortions, you might go with Romney.

I would prefer that The

Aunt Sam — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:40:48 +0000

In reply to The Second Debate: In Pursuit of Women Voters

I would prefer that The League of Women Voters were still the sponsor of the debates for many reasons. That said, I do believe that one debate should be focused on social issues and education.

I cannot comprehend how any woman (unless a Stepford wife or one that has no ability to think and/or holds herself and others of her gender in such low esteem that she cares not about the wellbeing of women) can cast a vote for RR.

Romney's own professional record regarding women in the workplace is stunning in it's entirety. If one combines this with his stance on women's healthcare, etc. his stance is clear.

Why is any woman voting for RR?