I know the candidates I don't like in the 2012 race for POTUS but I'm not invested in any particular candidate, including Cain. But I have to tell you, as I watched the asinine media blitz about the 'smoking' commercial, the twisting of everything he says - I thought to myself "Heh. Even the democrats aren't this weird. Where have I seen this before?"
All of a sudden, it hit me: The Romneybots.
Look, the ad was high-school quality and a bit strange, but only thing I got out of it was he must not have a team of professionals put together yet.
He definitely isn't politically seasoned. It's early...and I hate to say it...but it's not like there's another horse in the race. Perry is starting to look like an empty suit. Romney is a train-wreck. I like Newt and I'll get behind him if his campaign gets a lift, but I'm not sure he can pull it off. They will crucify Michelle. I don't trust Santorum. Paul is a screwball.
We're going to have to lower the bar on something and as far as I'm concerned, the seasoning and polish are not substantive. I'm tired of the phonies who are coached in the back room by pros.
As far as the abortion-related question with his grandaughter, I think that was a family-related and personal question - not a political question. I've heard his views on pro-life and I am satisfied with them. There's nothing to be gained by saying there are no exceptions to abortion, unless that's exactly the way he feels. The phoney pros dance around that question. Even prolifers who are cowards dance around that question. He's convicted.
The 'sexual harassment' thing could be something or could be nothing. I don't mean to undermine sexual harassment because it can be devastating if true. But until I hear more, it's a big yawn for me. I've seen too many men in the professional world have a bunch of nothing blown up by a woman with a chip on her shoulder.
The more this thing plays out, I'd say I agree with MaryAnn Kreitzer. It isn't persuading me away from him, if anything, he's starting to look a little better.
2 comments:
I don't know why so many people have such short memories. The '90s were not that long ago--even the early -'90s. In the early '90s, feminists were starting to flex their muscles in a big way, and never missed an opportunity to assert what they thought was their "independence." All the rules of casual conversation were tossed out and a man could say nothing more than "That's a pretty dress you are wearing today", and the next thing he knew he was called on the carpet by the head of the department--or worse--charged with sexual harassment. It took men a long time to realize that the rules of social intercourse had changed and that even to open a door for a woman was an act of male chauvinism that challenged a woman's status as an equal. Common sense and casual conversational discourse didn't exist. it was a terrible time. We seem to have forgotten that and now that the term "sexual harassment" has far more serious connotations, we apply the label incorrectly to those times. In those days, sexual harassment could have meant only a friendly smile--the same friendly smile that a man had shown to his coworker every day for years, but was now labeled "sexual harassment." Maybe that's why we haven't heard what the charges were.
What I'd like to know is when did they become so concerned whether someone is moral or not?
Post a Comment