Subscribe via RSS Feed

“It’s the worst case of Stockholm Syndrome I’ve seen since Patty Hearst.”

[ 41 ] October 17, 2012 |

Shorter Elizabeth Price Foley: “I’m really sick and tired of Obama ‘pandering’ to women by such dishonest tactics as ‘urging that their rights be protected’. Give me Mitt Romney and his more honest ‘women (who are poorer than me) should be forced by state coercion to carry their pregnancies to term’ and ‘a woman’s place is at home cooking dinner so who cares if women face discrimination at their phoney-baloney jobs’ any day. And, hey, you’re Instapundit readers, so you’re dumb enough to swallow the ol’ ‘overruling Roe is no big deal‘ routine, right?”

Comments (41)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cody says:

    What? That blurt is really dumb.

    Though I guess if your world view is that everything Obama says is a lie, it makes a lot of sense. Through that lens, you come to realize that everything coming out of his mouth must be a manipulation.

    Otherwise, you’re left looking at Republicans want to do and listening to what they say about contraception and abortion. Apparently, she does not want to do that.

  2. actor212 says:

    Wait, that was through Instapundit AND a shorter?

  3. DrDick says:

    WOW. That is some weapons grade stupid. I think that qualifies as a “please do not stop beating me” moment.

  4. Romney is trying to speak to women honestly, not pander to them.

    Hmm…

    CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?

    ROMNEY: Thank you. An important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

    And I – and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are – are all men.” They said, “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.” And I said, “Well, gosh, can’t we – can’t we find some – some women that are also qualified?”

    And – and so we – we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

    I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.

    I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

    Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

    She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

    We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. In the – in the last women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 31/2 million women, more now in poverty than four years ago.

    What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers that are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.

    This is what I have done. It’s what I look forward to doing and I know what it takes to make an economy work, and I know what a working economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment is not a real strong economy. An economy that has 23 million people looking for work is not a strong economy.

    An economy with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can’t finds a job, or a college level job, that’s not what we have to have.

    CROWLEY: Governor?

    ROMNEY: I’m going to help women in America get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.

    • What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers that are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.

      This is what I have done. It’s what I look forward to doing and I know what it takes to make an economy work

      Mitt Romney’s solution to gender discrimination in the workplace is tax cuts and deregulation.

      • Cody says:

        Weird! He would never propose that solution to any other problems.

        • STH says:

          I notice that this sort of “logic”–that the most important thing you can do for a minority is lower taxes, deregulate, the usual agenda–is also used by organizations like GOProud. That’s how they resolve the contradiction that the popular kids that they so admire treat them like dirt at every opportunity. I don’t know how they can stand being around the level of hatred that they get from the Republican Party, but I suppose it pales in comparison to their self-hatred.

  5. david mizner says:

    I had not previously had the pleasure of reading anything by Elizabeth Price Foley, so I Googled and discovered that after going to Harvard Law and working for Ron Wyden, she read the country’s founding documents, which turned her like magic into a tea party-championing “intellectual” who explains how President Obama showed us his racist “Billy Joel “Stranger”-type freaky face.”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/152485/

    • Wow.

      “Billy Joel “Stranger”-type freaky face” sounds like a phrase Wonkette would come up with to make fun of someone else’s writing. I can’t believe somebody actually wrote that seriously.

    • mark f says:

      So it’s true they don’t teach the Constitution at Harvard Law? Now I’m voting for Scott Brown.

    • We might expect this attitude from an uneducated, uncouth rapper, but someone who wants to be President of the United States– all of us– black, white, and purple with pink polka dots?

      She is right though that calling out racial injustice as something to fix is disrespecting racists who want to perpetuate it.

      Meanwhile Romney wants everyone to be free to work for subsistence wages paid in vouchers to the company store. We’ll get there, someday.

      • Malaclypse says:

        I think we can all agree that Kanye West shoulders the lion’s share of the blame for Katrina.

      • Hogan says:

        an uneducated, uncouth rapper

        Ahma let you finish, Elizabeth Price Foley, but Kanye West was raised by his mother, who was chair of the English department at Chicago State University. He attended classes at the American Academy of Art and Chicago State before starting his musical career. He started a foundation that works on keeping black and Latino kids in school. So stick it up your jumper, as the kids say.

        . . . They don’t? Oh.

        • Cody says:

          I did not know Kanye West’s mother was a Professor of English. I’m going to admit I’m pretty sure my view of his upbringing as a black child of a single mother in Chicago who turned out a rapper…

          may have been a bit racist.

        • Lee says:

          Oh wow, I knew that Kayne West was cool but this is absolutely awesome. He might qualify as one of the most intellectual rappers of all time. This is really great stuff.

      • She’s also right that having a minority racial identity is something wacky and fun, like brightly-colored polka dots.

      • tsam says:

        Uneducated, uncouth rapper, huh?

        Hey racists…those dogwhistles…WE CAN ALL HEAR YOU.

        • Cody says:

          I always thought this odd. Listening now to classic rock I heard when I was growing up, I’m struck by how dirty or provocative a lot of it is. It makes me feel a lot better about rap, knowing a previous generation just said these overtly sexual or violent things in a more singing manner.

  6. herr doktor bimler says:

    As people pointed out in a previous thread, this does make sense if you accept Romney’s premises that
    (a) Women are the least employable group, the labour force of last resort;
    (b) this is the way it should be; and
    (c) magic beans will make the economy grow.

  7. Semanticleo says:

    Romney is trying to speak to women honestly, not pander to them.

    Binders is Freudian, I think.

    Has anyone considered he made the gaff of all gaffes? In HBO’s Big Love the Cult Leaders of the Compound kept albums of available young women with pics and vital stats. Did they call them Binders? If so, then he is being honest with women.

    • sparks says:

      Binding, sealing. Seems like Mormon B&D.

    • YankeeFrank says:

      They called it the “joy book” if I recall. They contained pictures of faces, hands and feet, as if they were adding additional cows to their herd.

    • M. Bouffant says:

      “Joy Books.” (About halfway down. Via Wonkette.)

      Fawn Broadbend ran away almost three years ago, when she was 16, and now also lives in Salt Lake City. She remembers before she left being told not to laugh, but that was not why she fled Hilldale. At the age of 14 her name was added by her father to the “joy book”, a list allegedly collated by Jeffs of young girls whose parents believed they were ready to be put out to marriage, often with a husband who already had one or several other wives. When Broadbend learned that she was in the book, she resisted: her elder sister had become the 23rd wife of a polygamist with 106 children in Bountiful, an outpost of the faith in British Columbia, Canada, and she didn’t want that for herself.

  8. wengler says:

    What’s the old saying?

    A woman voting for Mitt Romney is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

  9. tsam says:

    If you step back and think about it, Obama says “yes” to both 1 & 2, meaning he believes (in typical progressive fashion), that there is one-size-fits-all to this controversial topic, and it’s his way or the highway. Romney’s position is the opposite, suggesting that, given the high degree of disagreement among Americans (and yes, women, too), a one-size-fits-all federal mandate isn’t the proper solution.

    Mandating that insurance companies provide coverage for contraception is a nice one size fits all mandate. Each woman can choose if she wants to use it or not. I think anyone who is not a moron would believe that the choice should be made by the individual, not a creepy, superstitious cleric.

    • avoidswork says:

      Lotsa morons out there, I tell you. Infringing on “liberteh!”

      Personally, how does one reason with someone who thinks that allowing contraception to be covered, whether by the explicit plan of the Institution or via the by-pass route of accessiblity within Obamacare, is infrining on Religious Liberty?

      How does one reason with someone who thinks a pharmacist/nurse conscience objection over dispensing birth control (hormonal therapy) has anything to do with the benefit of the patient?

      Seeing two prescriptions for Bob, along with Bob’s other prescriptions may cause harm to Bob — yes, please speak up.

      Seeing BC on a prescription pad, then declining? How does the pharmacist know it’s for treating cysts, abnormal bleeding, etc., vs. slutty mcwhore being able to have consequenceless sex?!

      The sad reality is those people are lost causes. Smart people realize no one is asking anyone to take BC, simply making an option available. Especially if said Institution receives $$ from the federal tit, then you follow federal rules.

      Uterus-American, out.

      • tsam says:

        I don’t even like that the administration was willing to compromise in the least bit. These are the rules, if you don’t like it, feel free to go pound sand. Religious freedom also means freedom from screwball religious dogma and doctrine. I don’t give a shit if Catholics don’t like it. They don’t have to use it. I rather like the idea of shoving it down their poor, oppressed throats, as they so eloquently state it.

        • YankeeFrank says:

          Actually, almost every catholic has a rather pragmatic relationship with birth control. Its only the clergy, and mainly the upper levels — the bishops — that are against birth control.

        • avoidswork says:

          Word.

          The freak-fest that comes out of the “Infringing Religious Liberteh!” nutteres when you point out that their beloved 1st Amendment also encompasses freedom *from* religion is amusing.

          Now, it’s clear to the Rationals that if Principle was so gosh, darn important, they would take the penalty ($$) or no longer accept federal funding.

          • Cody says:

            Yes, the press allowing the Clergy to conflate this with religious liberty is really frustrating. Not surprising, but frustrating.

            It’s clear to anyone who has a brain that forcing an employer (not the Church, but the hospitals they administrate!) to provide healthcare that covers contraception is not at all related to forcing people to take contraception.

            If you have faith in your members, why would you even care? Obviously since they all must believe what you do, they’re not going to take the birth control!

            • rea says:

              If you have faith in your members, why would you even care?

              Well, but the whole point is that the regulation applies in situations in which employees are not necesarily members of the church. It’s not the nuns who are entitled to birth control coverage, it’s the janitors.

  10. [...] debate. Unsurprisingly some conservatives think that Obama considering women’s issues is just pandering, because it’s not like losing Roe vs. Wade would encourage states to pass even more [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site