Juror#8

He changed the traditional hiring protocol to hire women. Also, in a sex-blind, color-blind society, you don't see the distinctions. You just see merit. Meritocracy. He had qualified applicants from which to choose but he disqualified those candidates based on them not being the right gender. It would be different if he said that he didn't have qualified candidates so he decided to start fresh, and therefore looked outside the traditional structure to find some female candidates. But that wasn't the case (based on how he explained the circumstances). He disqualified candidates based on their gender. What is there to argue? But yet he didn't before, in that fashion, in two debates, where that was more pointedly the topic for debate. He did now in a topic that was dedicated to foreign policy and not to the economy, or jobs, etc... And my peoples said that that was percolating in their camp and that the internal discussion was that it had to happen notwithstanding the debate topic. There are a lot of news sources that predict the discussion topics, the points of interest, and what the candidate will have to say or discuss. Find one that predicted that.

I don't know if you necessarily want to call him an insider. He is no more an insider than Eric Moulds would be to the Bills if you knew him. And as to the "independent" conversation...I'm not going to contrive discussion points to have. We were having lunch at Vapiano and talking **** about politics. I wasn't interviewing or interrogating him. It was a lunch with a friend and I thought that I'd share his insight with the board. He is a friend who is a strategist who worked for public officials, politicians, and lobbyists. He's worked as a strategist for politicians on the national level. He has insight and still mingles in the crowd, but he isn't actively working in that capacity. Now he consults and makes a lot more money than he did working exclusively for public officials. Anyway, I thought that his points were instructive. I also had lunch with an associate of mine who is close friends with my brother. He told me that internally the WH felt that they had to work the nuances and distinctions around the opposing views with respect to the auto baliout into this debate despite the fact that it was a debate on foreign policy. He said that internally, the WH realized that the auto bailout may decide the election and they had to push the government involvement angle. Lo and Behold, what does BO do last night? He discussed the auto bailout and the government involvement distinction in a debate about foreign policy. He hadn't mentioned that distinction one time in previous debates. Two debates went by and we didn't hear the nuance around the auto bailout that we did last night. This would have been the least likely debate scenario to have that discussion given the dedicated subject matter for the debate. But my associate was correct. He mentioned that internally they had made a decision that that had to nuance that point because Ohio may depend on it. I mentioned it yesterday in that post. Can you find a single news source that predicted that the President would discuss the auto bailout, specify the government involvement, and nuance it in that way in the final debate (about foreign policy) before it happened? Good luck. I texted my brother to tell my associate (his friend) "good job."

Bwahahahaha! Was waiting for you to show up counselor. Hey, pm and let me know if anything ever came out of that DC or Richmond thing that we discussed offline. Offer still stands when you're ready.

1. Links for what? I just referenced what Romney said during the debate and then reconciled those statements within the framework of affirmative action. Do you want me to start a blog in regards and then link to it? 2. I've rationalized that I was probably an affirmative action entry. I was .2 g.p.a. from the median score and top 20% GRE not top 5%. I didn't necessarily have a compelling story to tell. The only thing that I did after undergrad and before Columbia was wait tables at Dave and Busters in White Flint Mall. I didn't emphasize my blackness, and didn't try to be considered based on race - but in retrospect, I probably was. 3. I never said that I had an issue with affirmative action. I mentioned that I spoke with a former colleague who indicated that, in discussing the matter amongst people in his conservative circle, they felt that it could be a harbinger of things to come with Mitt. They're understandably concerned about ideological shifts with a candidate that they endeavor to place in a position to lead the country based on certain philosophical representations. This is an individual who works in political strategy circles and who was on campaign staffs at the national level. I trust his opinion a lot. Why are some so defensive about that? (and I'm talking pre "big-lipped !@#$s" comment so don't use that as an excuse).

The point is that he saw a distinction. If the objective is a color-blind and sex-less appraisal of an applicant pool, was Romney, by definition, sexist for even noticing that the applicant pool was all male? In response, he went out to find female applicants that were at least as qualified as the candidates that he already had. He never said that he had unqualified male candidates, he said that he noticed that there were no female candidates. He specifically crafted a program to hire an underrepresented class of folks for his cabinet - not because they applied originally, not because they were more qualified than the next guy, but just because they were underrepresented amongst the original pool of qualified applicants. He went out of his way, and changed the traditional hiring protocol, in order to hire women. That is an affirmative action program, through and through. It's a good thing that you did in your previous position by the way. I once represented a woman against a commercial plastic manufacturer that kept changing the bona fide occupational standard so that it basically only had a disparate impact on women. It was a tough fight but we won.

You're talking about filling a quota (filling a certain number of spots with certain groups type even if they don't meet the qualifications)...which I guess is a subset of an affirmative action effort. Affirmative action is saying that "there are not enough ________ for this _________ so let's go out and find some _________ not because they'e more qualified than Sam or Chip here, but just because they're __________ and that is a traditionally underrepresented group."

It's affirmative action. Expanding the qualified pool to increase the candidacies of traditionally under-represented groups...affirmative action. What you did...affirmative action. What Mitt did...affirmative action. I went to Columbia for my masters when I left UVA with only a 3.5 and not top 5% GRE....probably affirmative action. The problem is the distinction that LA tried to make. But noooooo...you're more concerned with my characterization. Got it.

Good dodge and awesome job not reconciling your point. The fact is this - I don't have a George at the airport story. I have friends who work for politicians in DC cause I live in DC and have worked in DC and my brother works for the WH. I don't need some serendipity moment of running into someone at the Cosi on 19th. I'll just pick up the Galaxy S3, text, have lunch, and talk. Usually I learn something. The only thing that your little ditty about no one mentioning such and such on such and such websites demonstrates is that your breadth of knowledge is slightly constrained. Romney's comments obviously suggest an affirmative action effort. Conservatives are traditionally loathe to support affirmative action efforts. You do the math son. So you think no conservative, who think beyond the scope of independent websites, have ever put two and two together? I'll trust my sources of knowledge, you trust yours.

I agree with you Doc. i think that the benefit outweighs any minimal cost that there might be. The way that it was explained to me was that it implicated a concern that conservatives had about Romney - that he would court whatever group he needed at that time; even if it meant going against a traditionally held belief or something that he advocated against, or advocated for, or advocated around, or whatever. Everybody evolves. Not everybody evolves about everything. My friend never said that it would cause a mass defection or even that people wouldn't vote for Romney. Quite the opposite acutally - he feels good about Romney's prospects. But then again, he felt good about McCain when I had lunch with him (Ron) about 7 weeks before the election. He only mentioned that it implicated a concern. I was interested because in all the media attention that the debate received, all the "binder full of women" talk that happened afterwards, and all the detailing of every point - the affirmative action angle never came out. I never thought about it until my buddy mentioned it. He mentioned it because that was internal talk in his conservative circles. So I wanted to share cause I thought that since we discuss politics in a slightly more nuanced way here, it was worth mentioning.

Exactly. That is what Mitt said he was doing.

I think that I pointed out very clearly who made it racial. But in the event that you misunderstood the post order, LA said: You can't confuse "I want to hire women because they're great workers" with "I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin." That was the point that race was injected into the conversation. My subsequent post was polemic, but it emphasized the inanity of saying that one thing is ok because it's from this group, but the other must be bad because it concerns the other group. My point was replete with flamboyance, but how was I not right on the substance? And how can you reconcile his points? If they're not reconcilable, why the distinction in the two groups? Why is one good and one is bad when facially they are doing the same thing? What about one group makes it laudable but for the other group it's loathsome? All I did was make his bias, whatever it's origins, animate.

That's Mitt Romney for you. The !@#$er can't figure out who he is or what he believes. Now he even has some conservatives carrying his water and substantiating his affirmative actions efforts. That is, of course, until someone discusses affirmative action efforts for racial minorities. Then it's *real* affirmative action as opposed to the "looking for good workers" affirmative action subset that happens when you seek to hire along gender lines.

Of course you were. But they are opinions...based on the observations of someone whom I trust and who does have particularized knowledge into some campaign strategy items. Why? LA distinguished out racial minority groups as if that encapsulated the whole of affirmative action hiring efforts. La said: "You can't confuse 'I want to hire women because they're great workers' with 'I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin.'" LA is saying that if you specifically look for women to fill positions because they're underrepresented in an applicant pool, it's trying to find great workers. If you specifically seek to find minorities who are underrepresented in an applicant pool, it's hiring them because of the color of their skin. Seriously, 3rd? Romney said that he noticed that their weren't any women who applied for the positions so he made an effort to JUST FIND qualified women to fill some positions. It is, by definintion, an affirmative action effort.

I didn't say it, Ron did. I don't care what you believe and what you don't believe. The information comes from a legitimate political op who is an established republican strategist who can boast political bonafides and is not just some guy being skeptical on a message board. Think what you please. If i posted to score high on the veracity meter and be liked, then yea...I'd care. But I don't. And I don't. By the way, read Romney's quote. And then read the definition of affirmative action: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; It was affirmative action LA. There were some conservatives who weren't happy about it, LA. But since it wasn't some big-lipped !@#$ going after the white man's jobs, then I guess you characterize it a little differently.

Championing the Bush-Roemer ticket.

My Ds are gentlemen.

5. How do you see Ohio playing out?

Which option will result in the team winning the fewest games this year and ending up with the #1 overall draft pick? Probably keeping the HC and DC through the season. Count me in for that one.

Do you think that the WH is a desperation type situation?

A couple of things that I heard recently about both candidates, that may have more of an influence on the outcome of the election than one might think. Some of this **** is floating around tangentially in the news. This weekend, though, I enjoyed some drinks and political conversations with a couple of "ok" connected political minds in Alexandria, VA and learned the following "not so inside," inside information about the campaigns: 1. Romney is spending a lot of time trying to figure out what BOs internal electoral map projections look like. He wants BO to give up in FL by repurposing his folks so that they (Romney) can pull their team and the lion share of their ad buys there and rededicate them to Ohio, WI and NV. 2. BO has ceded NC. Romney is pulling out his folks and repurposing them as I type this. 3. BO folks feel VERY confident that they have PA back under control. There is some consternation within the Romney campaign around the propriety of ceding PA. Don't know who is on which side of the argument but there is a little in-fighting. 4. BO feels that if they get VA or OH it's game over. They feel that both states are a bell weather for how the other toss ups will fall. 5. The auto bailout may decide the election. It's sustaining BO's lead in MI and likely giving him the advantage in OH. Despite Romney's contentions that the administration did what he (Romney)suggested, the WH feels that they are successfully making the nuanced case in those states that GM and Chrysler would not have successfully emerged from bankruptcy without Government guarantees - essentially that government intervention was the key to that process happening successfully. Big Big Big distinction. The WH will owe Sherrod Brown huge if OH goes blue. He is stumping on that point like a man on a mission. 6. Expect to here "China" brought up many times tonight. Romney folks feel that may give them an in-road into an obstinate OH electorate. 7. A lost point from the second debate: many conservatives are annoyed at Romney for his "Binders full of Women" comment. Some feel that what he did was advocate and acknowledge the usefulness of affirmative action policies. This point is from a former colleague and republican strategist. 8. Romney has a 10 point lead among men. Obama has a 9 point lead among women. There are a couple more million women than men in this country. Romney is running ads blasting away at BOs claim about Romney's stance on contraception. The ads also attempt to broaden the scope of women's issues to encompass ancillary family economic considerations (where they feel that BO is demonstrably weak). Romney feels that within the penubras of the contraception issue is where the gender gap falls. 8a. BO feels that there is a certain substantive centrality to the contraception issue that Romney can't talk around or through. It affects women every moment of every day and therefore they feel that they have a talking point that isn't predicated on situation ethics.

Great thoughts as usual Bill. As you so astutely pointed out, props should go primarily to those on the offensive side of the ball. They kept us in the game despite a woeful defensive effort (and planning). Just think...if we could have invested in a couple more weapons on offense to win shootouts - and give up some of these overpriced cogs that any 6th round mannequin could replicate the utility of? To be sure, what country ever won a war by focusing primarily on having garrisons aggressively defend their land against advancing infantrymen?

He is not too traumatized to collect his check though, right. This is not an indictment of his emotions or how he should react to what is, undoubtedly, a difficult emotional situation for he and his family. His emotional well-being and family circumstances are CONSIDERABLY more important than football. I wish he and his family all the best in the world. But if he is not into his job, and needs time to grieve, he should take time away and focus on his family and his emotional health and well-being. IF it is the emotional struggle that is causing him to perform poorly at his job, and he does not want to satisfy his day-to-day job reponsibilities at the level that he is compensated at, and he is willing to articulate that he is not willing to perform at a satisfactoy level, then, then he should stop just collecting a paycheck and take the time that he needs to grieve. It's not like he is the regular joe busting his hump for $40,000.00 a year. That guy may need to stay on and work through the grieving period because finacially he doesn't have many other resources. Marcell is a very wealthy man. If he (rightfully) prioritzes family over his NFL job, then he needs to do just that. Meanwhile, in Cincinnati, AJ Green....

I did. BS stuff. Nothing glamarous. I was one of 100 other attorneys (or dumb as a wall children of well known entertainers - which was the case with a certain southern House member of Congress) who fetched coffee, or sorted constituent mail, or got 'so and so on the phone,' or occassionally read a synopsis. Since I talked to the congressman maybe four times in the approximately 2 years that I was there (and once was at a holiday party), the real treat was discussing substantive stuff with the LD. Everyone said it would be a foot in the door to a chief of staff role in 15 years. It wasn't. It was a foot in the door to not valuably utilizing my time by fetching coffee and making sure that we had Celestial tea stocked.

Agreed. There is no urgency in legislative politics. With respect to supermajority...I was referring more to the delegation of responsibility and introduction of external influence that slows up the process. It's just slow. It could be fast, but it never is.

Agreed - he stretched his goodwill a good deal. The WH was very disingenuous about Rs not working with them at all. Rs did during the first year. After that, and the goodwill faded, and they had some leverage, they obstructed as best as they could. My former point was only that 5 months is not much time in the world of legislative politics. It's a surprisingly small amount of time.