This Just in:Dolly Madison out of touch with Americans

[kermit]

Why would she need that understanding in the White House? It's not like she'll be vaccuuming the Blue Room carpets and dusting the furniture in the Oval Office.

But Mitt said that he relies on her for an understanding of women's concerns. Other than biologically I can't think of any way that she has the experience to understand the concerns of average women.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Why would she need that understanding in the White House? It's not like she'll be vaccuuming the Blue Room carpets and dusting the furniture in the Oval Office.

Nobody said she needed that understanding in the White House. Your error is evidenced by how you completely failed copying and pasting where anyone said that.

 

[stiggywiggy]

But Mitt said that he relies on her for an understanding of women's concerns.

I'm notsaying he didn't say that, but I do have my doubts. Do you have a quote?

Other than biologically I can't think of any way that she has the experience to understand the concerns of average women.

So you don't think women understand women better than men? You may be right, but I hardly seee it as a negative that a man might talk to his wife about matters that affect women primarily.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Why would any man take his wife's opinion as anything other than that of women of a similar socio-economic status.

WHAT?? So a rich woman cannot understand a poor woman? Folks, it looks like class division has finally become axiomatic. Women who work can no longer relate to stay-at-home Moms?

Romney's wife's opinion on women's issues only relates to women in multimillionaire households.

How ridiculous. That comment assumes the very axiom mentioned above, and it also presupposes equality of wealth as a necessity for any compatibility, understanding, compassion or meaningful relationships between women.

Why not waste your time pondering how a fat woman can relate to a skinny woman.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Nobody said she needed that understanding in the White House.

I was replying to this:

"Even if you look at Ann Romney as a house wife she lacks a firm understanding of what an average house wife expereriences as she's had help in the form of nannies and housekeepers."

I replied with this:

"Why would she need that understanding in the White House? It's not like she'll be vaccuuming the Blue Room carpets and dusting the furniture in the Oval Office."


For some reason you replied to my reply with this:


"Nobody said she needed that understanding in the White House."

I guess you didn't read what I was replying to.

Your error is evidenced by how you completely failed copying and pasting where anyone said that.

Error? You seldom make any sense to me. It's an error for me to ask someone who remarks that a potential future occupant of the White House has no understanding of housekeeping, if such an understanding would really be necessary in that very White House. Please elaborate on what you see erroneous in that.

 

[tulc]

I see. The increase in news media means that today's stay-at-home Moms are more out of touch with women than stay-at-home Moms in the early '60's, and therefore Jackie Kennedy is not as open to the charge of being out-of-touch as Ann Romney is.

hmmmm...that COULD be what I meant or it could be that, lacking the need to feed the never satisfied 24/7 news channels they didn't have to create "news stories" about faux "attacks" on whether or not a multimillionaires wife "could help her husband understand the needs of American women" as her multimillionaire husband suggested.
tulc(needs more coffee)

 

[jgarden]

But Mitt said that he relies on her for an understanding of women's concerns .....

If Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton had said the same thing about their wives, the conservatives would have "taken them to task" for allowing Michelle and Hillary to impose their views in presidential affairs!

Michelle has been widely criticized just for attempting to focus public attention on childhood obesity - included among them was GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney!

Conservatives heap criticism on Michelle Obama's campaign against childhood obesity
February 27, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Former first ladies Barbara and Laura Bush worked to end illiteracy. Nancy Reagan famously took on teenage drug use. Lady Bird Johnson planted flowers. But none of them have been seared for something as seemingly benign as calling for kids to eat more vegetables, as Michelle Obama has.

Just about everyone will agree that the nation's children are getting fatter and that obesity is a serious health problem. But the first lady's push for healthier meals and more exercise, which marked its first anniversary this month, has provoked a backlash from the right, who complain that the only thing here that's supersized is Big Brother.

..... And in January, some conservatives even suggested that Obama was endangering people, blaming an increase in pedestrian deaths on the first lady's campaign by saying that Americans were putting themselves at risk by walking more.

Romney, others join in criticism

This month, Mitt Romney, addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, peppered his remarks with digs at the first lady and her husband.

Ridiculing President Obama's purported move toward the political center, Romney joked that the president's rhetoric had shifted so radically that "he sounded like he was going to dig up the first lady's organic garden to put in a Bob's Big Boy," Romney said.

Later, while equating Obama's economic policies to Marie Antoinette's purported line about the French peasantry -- "Let them eat cake" -- Romney corrected himself.

"I'm sorry," he crowed. "Organic cake."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/26/nation/la-na-michelle-obama-obesity-20110227

 

[A2SG]

It's a proven fact: if you want to obscure an issue and create an immediate argument, pit working women and working moms against stay at home moms. It's a guaranteed argument and it will take so much public attention, whatever the original point was will be irreparably lost!

-- A2SG, an observation courtesy of my wife, who says it works every time.....

 

[DaisyDay]

No, I'm not a vague guy. I elaborate. If I were to use the phrase "out of touch," at least I'd try to give an example, or at a minimum explain what being in touch would entail in this particular case.

You did use the phrase - this is your thread, it is in the title which you wrote.

And Jackie Kennedy? Don't get me started.

That's elaborating?

... we might soon be eating Rosie O'Donnell ding-dongs.

That is little more than a gratuitous slap at an easy target.

There you go, being vague again.

That was a direct reference to your " Having never worked a day in her life, how could she possibly feel any solidarity with the women of the time who slopped hogs, plowed fields and worked in sweat shops? " I was supposing that was part of your elaboration of what your phrase "out of touch" meant. If it wasn't, then what did you mean by the phrase in your thread title?

Mrs. Jackson, if you are unaware, was regularly derided during her stay at the White House for being a pioneering hick, pretty much the antithesis of the polished Mrs. Madison.

Not true. It was my OP and I was talking about Hilary Rosen's criticism of Ann Romney.

It was badly worded on Rosen's part, but the criticism was directed at Mitt, not Ann.

 

[stiggywiggy]

You did use the phrase

I never said I didn't. I was correcting you in thinking it was my phrase. It was not. It was Hilary Rosen's. I was commenting on it. Since you're now commenting on it, does that now make it your phrase?

That's elaborating?

Some things are too obvious to elaborate on, but I'll oblige. Jackie didn't work. Ann's never worked. Ann gets grief. Jackie did not.

 

[Vylo]

Almost as relevant, JFK never caught any grief for being unable to use a computer!

 

[kermit]

WHAT?? So a rich woman cannot understand a poor woman?

Yes, a woman (and a man) that has always lived in prividge does not understand the concerns of their counterparts in other socioeconomic groups.

Folks, it looks like class division has finally become axiomatic. Women who work can no longer relate to stay-at-home Moms?

Do working moms and stay-at-home moms now exist in different socioeconomic groups?

 

[stiggywiggy]

Almost as relevant, JFK never caught any grief for being unable to use a computer!

I guess your suggestion is that that since few people used computers (about zero%) in 1960, it would be foolish to suggest that JFK was an anomaly for not having done so, whereas it would NOT be foolish to criticize a 2012 citizen for never having used a computer, since over 95% do today.

Meanwhile in 1960, 33.4% of women worked, while today 48% work.

Sorry. Nice try. I love analogies, but I like them better when they work.

 

[Vylo]

I guess your suggestion is that that since few people used computers (about zero%) in 1960, it would be foolish to suggest that JFK was an anomaly for not having done so, whereas it would NOT be foolish to criticize a 2012 citizen for never having used a computer, since over 95% do today.

Meanwhile in 1960, 33.4% of women worked, while today 48% work.

Sorry. Nice try. I love analogies, but I like them better when they work.

Oh it was made to be more dramatic, and more in line with your Madison comment, but it is still relevant. Apparently you can dish out hyperbole, but can't deal with a little back .

More then 48% of women work today, the number is 59.2 % in 2009 http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8be22cb0-8ed0-4a1a-841b-aa91dc55fa81

So back in Jackie's time, the majority, 2/3 of women didn't work. Meanwhile, today 3/5, the majority of women are in the workforce.

Jackie's situation represented the norm back, then, Ann Romney's does not today.

Beyond that, did JFK ever claim her to be his adviser on women's issues?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Some things are too obvious to elaborate on, but I'll oblige. Jackie didn't work. Ann's never worked. Ann gets grief. Jackie did not.

There you go again, hacking apart a person's statement to avoid admitting when you're wrong.

It's funny, watching you in these debates is like watching a train wreck. It's so horrifying to watch, but impossible to look away

Rosen was criticizing Mitt, not Ann. Of course, I'm sure you'll completely cut this statement out of whatever you quote.

 

[Vylo]

There you go again, hacking apart .... a person.... to avoid admitting when you're wrong.

It's funny, ......to watch, .....

Obviously you are accussing him of being a murderer, and you take great joy in it.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Oh it was made to be more dramatic, and more in line with your Madison comment, but it is still relevant. Apparently you can dish out hyperbole, but can't deal with a little back

So my answer means I couldn't and didn't "deal with" your analogy?? I'm not sure what dealing with it would entail, but something must have been dealt with, since you commented below on the words I used when I DID deal with it.

If by "dealing with" it, you mean affirming your belief that it relates analogously to mine, sorry. I can't oblige.

.

So back in Jackie's time, the majority, 2/3 of women didn't work. Meanwhile, today 3/5, the majority of women are in the workforce.

And back in JFK's time nearly zero percent of Americans could use a computer, while today nearly 100% can. I realize analogies needn't have exact quantitative parallels, but yours tries so hard to fit, it breaks.

Jackie's situation represented the norm back, then, Ann Romney's does not today.

Beyond that, did JFK ever claim her to be his adviser on women's issues?

I doubt it. But neither did Romney claim that Ann was his adviser on women's issues. So why did you ask that question?

He said he talked to her about what women are thinking in regard to the economy. Speaking of the norm, it should be the norm for husbands to talk to their wives about ANYTHING THEY WANT TO!

 

[Vylo]

I doubt it. But neither did Romney claim that Ann was his adviser on women's issues. So why did you ask that question?

Romney says his wife 'reports to me regularly' on concerns of women voters - POLITICO.com

My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me. And she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy and getting good jobs for their kids and for themselves. They're concerned about gasoline prices - the cost of getting to and from work, taking their kids to school or to practice. That's what women care about in this country."

 

[stiggywiggy]

There you go again, hacking apart a person's statement to avoid admitting when you're wrong.

What on earth are you talking about? You have this habit of stating stuff as if I can read your mind and pick up on your reference. I hate to do this, but if I'm to reply to your stuff, I guess we'll have to try this format. Please fill in the blank:

Stiggy hacked apart ________'s statement in which ________ said, "__________________," when he said "___________________."

Stiggy avoided admitting he was wrong about saying "________________."


I'm serious. If you'll fill in those blanks, I promise to reply.

It's funny, watching you in these debates is like watching a train wreck.

You know, Curly..., can I call you Curly? You just did something that has always puzzled me when I've seen others do a similar thing. Since about 90% of our so-called debates at this place have shown us at odds, how could you possibly expect anyone (especially me) to accept that sort of opinion as objective and unbiased? You wrote it. I think if I tried to jump into the middle of a polemical discussion and simply declared that the guy I've been arguing with is not very good at arguing, I'd feel like a chump, like a boxer in a ring trying to functioning as a referee in the very match he's involved in.

If you somehow are seeing train wrecks, why not shine a light on the supposed wreckage. Otherwise, all we have is you claiming that my arguments are like train wrecks. Even if it weren't a hackneyed phrase, there's just not much you can do with that comment.

It's so horrifying to watch, but impossible to look away

Ah. Perfect. Let's try the new format here. Fill in the blanks:

It was horrifying to watch this bit of dialogue in which stiggy was engaged:

"__________________________________________; "____________________,"______________________,"

because ___________________________.

Rosen was criticizing Mitt, not Ann.

Wrong. (See. I called you wrong, and now instead of just leaving at that, I will now show you where.) Rosen criticized Ann also, unless you think being called "out of touch" is a compliment.

Of course, I'm sure you'll completely cut this statement out of whatever you quote.

Wrong again.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Obviously you are accussing him of being a murderer, and you take great joy in it.

*slowly stops handing stiggy weapons* I do NOT!