A couple of things that you may not have known...

[1billsfan]

You do realize talking to people on a conservative website is not the same thing as talking to political insiders, right? That's like saying talking to people on TSW is the same as talking to Russ Brandon or Buddy Nix. Conservative websites, like Bills' websites, are homes to fanatics.

 

The people who work in the trenches in DC every day are not fanatics. Thus, they're more in tune (sometimes) to reality.

 

 

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things ever said on this PPP board.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

In prior times I was involved with manufacturing management in some fairly large operations. Nearly all of the supervisors, foremen and lead people were male, while we had a large amount of female laborers. I was always looking to groom people for a leadership role but it was often difficult to find a person that had the attributes that I wanted. A normal path for person would be to start out as a "utility" person who kept the production line supplied and handled a lot of odd jobs, thus giving them a pretty good overview of things. After that the idea was to move them to a "lead" position, formen and then on to supervisor. The utility job requirements were that you had to be able to lift "x" amount of weight. This kept nearly all woman out of the path to promotion. I changed the written job requirements but not the necessity of still moving the 80 pound item. Guess what? I received a lot more interest in the job from females. They found a way to move the 80 pounds and I was able to triple the available pool of promotable people. All Romney did was change the unwritten job requirements (in a very liberal state) to include woman. The "female binder" thing is nothing other than a canard. Do you think he didn't also have a "male binder"? The only way he can be faulted here is if he hired women who were less qualified than men just to meet some kind of quota. There is nothing wrong from the conservative viewpoint of searching out and hiring a woman who is as qualified (or more) as her competition for the job.

[jjamie12]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't remember Mitt Romney ever campaigning on "We need to end affirmative action!" In fact, the only things I've heard him say are "We need to equalize opportunity for people, NOT outcomes".

 

Sure enough, I just spent some time over on MittRomney.com and I couldn't find anything over there about affirmative action. Literally, there was nothing about it.

 

But, somehow, I'm supposed to believe that "opposition to affirmative action" is a "core belief" of Mitt Romney's and that he's a lying liar who hates apple pie and babies and wants to make rubbers and The Pill illegal.

 

Whatever. I'll be really happy when this election is over.

[IDBillzFan]

So conservative values can be summed up as such:

 

Non existent.

 

We both know you're smarter than that, so I suspect you're just busting chops.

 

The conservative movement in which I find myself wrapped is less easily defined than most liberals I know will admit. (I don't bundle you in with that thoughtless group, for what it's worth.) The social issues are useless any more in terms of a one-size-fits-all argument. They can no longer win the argument that because conservatives don't like entitlement spending, they want grandma to die or children to starve. They can no longer generalize that because most conservatives are Christian that they are against gay marriage and abortion in the cases of rape, etc. (In fact, the Obama administration's argument that Catholic churches should provide birth control in their health care supports my position because the WH repeatedly argues that traditional Catholic women really don't believe in everything their church tells them.)

 

And in the case of something stupid like affirmative action, they can no longer successfully argue that conservatives are against it because they're racists. Personal accountability is a concept liberals will never accept because they refuse to believe, as most conservatives do, that MOST people have the ability to help themselves when prompted to. It has nothing to do with your heritage or skin color.

 

In the end, the biggest difference is that most conservatives believe in the idea of "You have no one to blame but yourself," while most liberals believe in the idea that "there is ALWAYS someone else to blame other than yourself...and the one you blame should pay up to make things right."

[UConn James]

They are out there.

 

There are also sources out there who blame Romney for the roof panel collapse in that Big Dig tunnel that crushed a woman.

 

Of course... Romney had wanted to replace the (Republican) head of the transportation authority left over from the previous admin due to his incompetence but the MA legislature tied both hands behind Romney's back... until the collapse, when they let Romney fire the dude and then blamed him for the shoddiness of a project for which he was governor for the final two years of wrap-up construction.

 

There's probably sources out there who blame him for the 100-year flooding and dam failure that threatened Worcester in 2005 when we had 22 straight days of heavy rains in the northeast.

 

But back in reality, Romney stepped in, closed down tunnels, ordered inspections and began the process of holding the contractor of faulty securing bolts liable according to the terms of the contract. Then, he directed resources to replace piping and do necessary repairs on the break. Most other governors would have been at that microphone getting all the free publicity they could. Romney talked for like 5 minutes, then stepped aside and got back to work and ordered dam checks on public and private properties.

 

Frankly, there are a lot of media outlets in MA that have no compunction about lying about Republicans' records and pull stories like this straight out of their *s.

[Juror#8]

In prior times I was involved with manufacturing management in some fairly large operations. Nearly all of the supervisors, foremen and lead people were male, while we had a large amount of female laborers. I was always looking to groom people for a leadership role but it was often difficult to find a person that had the attributes that I wanted. A normal path for person would be to start out as a "utility" person who kept the production line supplied and handled a lot of odd jobs, thus giving them a pretty good overview of things. After that the idea was to move them to a "lead" position, formen and then on to supervisor. The utility job requirements were that you had to be able to lift "x" amount of weight. This kept nearly all woman out of the path to promotion. I changed the written job requirements but not the necessity of still moving the 80 pound item. Guess what? I received a lot more interest in the job from females. They found a way to move the 80 pounds and I was able to triple the available pool of promotable people. All Romney did was change the unwritten job requirements (in a very liberal state) to include woman. The "female binder" thing is nothing other than a canard. Do you think he didn't also have a "male binder"? The only way he can be faulted here is if he hired women who were less qualified than men just to meet some kind of quota. There is nothing wrong from the conservative viewpoint of searching out and hiring a woman who is as qualified (or more) as her competition for the job.

 

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.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

First off, where are the links, stories and quotes that back up your statements? Second, you have been against Romney from the start because of his supposed flip-flopping. How do you reconcile his hiring of people equally qualified as others as wrong, with Columbia University admitting you when you were less qualified than others?

[jjamie12]

First off, where are the links, stories and quotes that back up your statements? Second, you have been against Romney from the start because of his supposed flip-flopping. How do you reconcile his hiring of people equally qualified as others as wrong, with Columbia University admitting you when you were less qualified than others?

He's not saying that HE'S against affirmative action -- he's saying that Republicans, in general, are against affirmative action and that THEY (Conservative Republicans) are upset about Mitt Romney "affirmative actioning" his staffing. Further -- he's not surprised that people who have self-described as against affirmative action would spin the Mitt Romney binder story into something that wasn't affirmative action because Mitt Romney happens to be the Republican nominee.

[Juror#8]

First off, where are the links, stories and quotes that back up your statements? Second, you have been against Romney from the start because of his supposed flip-flopping. How do you reconcile his hiring of people equally qualified as others as wrong, with Columbia University admitting you when you were less qualified than others?

 

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).

[3rdnlng]

He's not saying that HE'S against affirmative action -- he's saying that Republicans, in general, are against affirmative action and that THEY (Conservative Republicans) are upset about Mitt Romney "affirmative actioning" his staffing. Further -- he's not surprised that people who have self-described as against affirmative action would spin the Mitt Romney binder story into something that wasn't affirmative action because Mitt Romney happens to be the Republican nominee.

 

I would venture to guess that conservatives have no problem with a diverse government with people hired on the basis of qualification, not race or gender. As a governor I would want input from old white guys along with old black guys, young white and black women, old white and black woman, young white and black guys, hispanics, and nearly everyone but Canadians. Seriously, hiring on the basis of race or gender to meet a quota is wrong. Hiring on the basis of qualification while doing it in a diverse way is good, and only helps the guy in charge to do a better job.

[Joe Miner]

I'm not as up to date on Romney's hiring practices as some of you seem to be.

 

But to me there's a difference between interviewing equally qualified individuals to determine if they bring something substantial in the diversity department and hiring a minority just because they're a minority.

 

Recognizing that diversity can be good and valuable to a position is different than hiring solely based on the color of skin or number of wieners the applicant has.

 

Either way, I don't know one conservative/republican that took away the idea of Romney supporting affirmative action from his speech. So maybe this source knows what he's talking about and maybe he doesn't.

[3rdnlng]

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).

 

I don't believe in any way that Romney hired less qualified people in order to make his administration more diverse. If he did he would be just as wrong as the people believing that Affirmative Action should work off of quotas regardless of qualificaions.

[Rob's House]

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).

I find this offensive. "big-lipped !@#$s" are just as capable as thin-lipped !@#$s

[OCinBuffalo]

So... the party of moral values is okay with their nominee shifting core values just to win an election.

 

Gotcha.

We live in a world where the NOW women had nothing to say, about honest to God sexual harassment in the workplace, regarding Clinton?

 

That's right, the "women's" groups did nothing, said nothing, and went out of their way to continue to support Clinton? And, you want Romney to play it straight? Blow it out your ass. Where are your "moral" arguments?

 

Romney is simply playing the game by the rules you've created. He's playing it better than you, and now you are crying about it. Nobody feels sorry for you getting outplayed here, and certainly not independent voters(segue coming up)....who Juror #8 neglected to mention in his OP.

 

It's amazing, truly amazing, that Romney leading Obama by an average of 10 pts with INDs, when they have been the decisive factor for every election in my lifetime...is not a story. How is this not THE story? It was THE story in 2008. There were literally 1000s of articles, when Obama carried them by 8pts. Now, they don't matter?

 

Where is this mass delusion, that Obama is going to turn out enough D voters to not only beat the clearly energized R turnout, but also overcome the I turnout, coming from? Or, where is the hard news that shows exactly how this is going to happen?

 

Juror #8 has 8-10 points of insider info, yet not a single one about independents? I like the inside stuff, but, WTF? These are professional political operatives....who have nothing to say about the independent vote? Isn't that a little strange?

[fjl2nd]

We're talking about affirmative action? Seriously? Affirmative action?...LOL I think there's an awful lot of Obama supporters here who are stunned and desperate for answers about this election and where it's going. When we start seeing threads about affirmative action I think it's time to stop the BS train.

 

Here's your answer...

 

Obama lost this election in the first debate with Romney. On that night, 70 million Americans saw a frail, scared and unprepared president and said "check please". There was a historic shift in the polls and perceptions of both candidates. Even the skewed polls have the race tied now. That means that Gallup is right and Romney does have a solid 6 point lead. Romney will definitely win OH and it's 50-50 he wins PA.

 

I wonder if you said this in 2004 with Bush??

[drnykterstein]

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.

 

If these statements are true .. this is the most interesting post I've seen on here in a long long long time.

[Juror#8]

I find this offensive. "big-lipped !@#$s" are just as capable as thin-lipped !@#$s

 

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.

[Juror#8]

We live in a world where the NOW women had nothing to say, about honest to God sexual harassment in the workplace, regarding Clinton?

 

That's right, the "women's" groups did nothing, said nothing, and went out of their way to continue to support Clinton? And, you want Romney to play it straight? Blow it out your ass. Where are your "moral" arguments?

 

Romney is simply playing the game by the rules you've created. He's playing it better than you, and now you are crying about it. Nobody feels sorry for you getting outplayed here, and certainly not independent voters(segue coming up)....who Juror #8 neglected to mention in his OP.

 

It's amazing, truly amazing, that Romney leading Obama by an average of 10 pts with INDs, when they have been the decisive factor for every election in my lifetime...is not a story. How is this not THE story? It was THE story in 2008. There were literally 1000s of articles, when Obama carried them by 8pts. Now, they don't matter?

 

Where is this mass delusion, that Obama is going to turn out enough D voters to not only beat the clearly energized R turnout, but also overcome the I turnout, coming from? Or, where is the hard news that shows exactly how this is going to happen?

 

Juror #8 has 8-10 points of insider info, yet not a single one about independents? I like the inside stuff, but, WTF? These are professional political operatives....who have nothing to say about the independent vote? Isn't that a little strange?

 

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."

Edited October 23, 2012 by Juror#8

[GG]

Why are some so defensive about that? (and I'm talking pre "big-lipped !@#$s" comment so don't use that as an excuse).

 

Folks are still upset that Steve Tyler left American Idol?

[3rdnlng]

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."

 

Obama has nothing but "I killed Osama and saved the auto industry". It doesn't take a political genius to figure out that he would attempt to tout them every chance he gets. Hell, those are his two opening points in an address to Wilson Middle School.