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

[Juror#8]

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

[Doc]

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."

I'd say it's indicative that he (your associate) knew what was going on internally. But bringing-up the bailout was a major mistake. First of all, I don't know how many people for whom the bailout is a big deal would have tuned-into a debate that was supposed to be about foreign policy. Second of all, bringing it up gave Romney a chance to explain Barry's distortions about what Romney actually said. An attack ad doesn't allow for a rebuttal like "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not" and "[t]hat's the height of silliness."

[Taro T]

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."

The bolded is what I'm curious about post-debate reaction. The President tried to frame it as 'I saved Detroit, you wanted to liquidate it,' but the challenger was ready with 'no, I wanted an ordered bankruptcy without government money but rather government guarantees.' The President essentially said 'you're a liar' and 'check the transcript' but the article shows that he did actually support what he said.

 

If the R's can find a way to frame that into a 'there you go again moment,' I could see that exchange backfiring on the President.

 

I also thought the challenger was smart to not frame it as violating standard bankruptcy law which the President probably would of pounced on as being 'anti-union and anti-middle class.'

[Juror#8]

Folks are still upset that Steve Tyler left American Idol?

 

Well played.

 

Ba-doom-boom diiiiiiiinnnng.

 

"Take my wife.....no really....take her." "I just flew in and my arms are tired."

[3rdnlng]

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?

 

 

Bullschit. Prove that. Link to it. Do something to legitimize that statement. He didn't qualify candidates based on their f'n race, did he? Tell me still, did he hire any less qualified people based on their gender?

[Rob's House]

 

 

 

Bullschit. Prove that. Link to it. Do something to legitimize that statement. He didn't qualify candidates based on their f'n race, did he? Tell me still, did he hire any less qualified people based on their gender?

In a round about way he more or less said he did in the debate.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Rob's House

[Juror#8]

Bullschit. Prove that. Link to it. Do something to legitimize that statement. He didn't qualify candidates based on their f'n race, did he? Tell me still, did he hire any less qualified people based on their gender?

 

Wow.

 

He said that he looked at the candidates and noticed that there were no women. So he went to find women. He didn't say that the existing one's were unqualified, only that of those that he had, none were women.

 

He disqualified the extant applicant pool based on the fact that they weren't what he coveted...women.

 

He therefore disqualified men because they weren't women.

 

Read his statement over and over and over again and then link to it yourself. I'm going off of what he did and did not say.

 

It's clear to those who don't try to defend his every move. Give him some room to breathe will ya, you're crowding him a bit.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

Where have you been? Obama touts the "auto bailout" and "killing Osama" every chance he gets. Notice that he doesn't say much about any "stimulus", "green energy initiative" or improved economy. For a guy that despises Obama, you sure like washing his balls.

[Juror#8]

I'd say it's indicative that he (your associate) knew what was going on internally. But bringing-up the bailout was a major mistake. First of all, I don't know how many people for whom the bailout is a big deal would have tuned-into a debate that was supposed to be about foreign policy. Second of all, bringing it up gave Romney a chance to explain Barry's distortions about what Romney actually said. An attack ad doesn't allow for a rebuttal like "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not" and "[t]hat's the height of silliness."

 

I agree that it was a mistake. I think that muddles a dedicated debate and makes him look desperate and pandering.

 

But I think that they made a calculated decision that this election rises and falls on the strength of Ohio. I don't know this for sure, but based on some allusions in a recent conversations, there are probably some internals showing a trend for Romney and the WH decided that if they did nothing, they would lose the state so they only had one play that would decidedly, in one way or the other, focus on the constituency of that single state.

 

Auto bailout.

 

I also think that Ohio is trending in Romney's direction. However, there has been a lot of early voting in OH so who knows the result of those already cast.

[3rdnlng]

I agree that it was a mistake. I think that muddles a dedicated debate and makes him look desperate and pandering.

 

But I think that they made a calculated decision that this election rises and falls on the strength of Ohio. I don't know this for sure, but based on some allusions in a recent conversations, there are probably some internals showing a trend for Romney and the WH decided that if they did nothing, they would lose the state so they only had one play that would decidedly, in one way or the other, focus on the constituency of that single state.

 

Auto bailout.

 

I also think that Ohio is trending in Romney's direction. However, there has been a lot of early voting in OH so who knows the result of those already cast.

 

 

Now this is a well thought out post.

[Juror#8]

Where have you been? Obama touts the "auto bailout" and "killing Osama" every chance he gets. Notice that he doesn't say much about any "stimulus", "green energy initiative" or improved economy. For a guy that despises Obama, you sure like washing his balls.

 

I don't despise BO. I think he is a nice guy. I know people who have worked with him and they say wonderful things about him as a person - truly, sincerely, genuinely nice things. I respect him and think he is trying hard to take this country in a good direction.

 

I disagree with BO on policy. I don't think that he is capable of taking this country in the right direction. I feel that the GOP prescription is better able to fix the problems that the country has right now. I think the GOP has the ideas and the insight.

 

I don't have to personally dislike him, to disagree with him.

 

I dislike Romney as a man and as a person. I've met him. I got the man's autograph years ago. There nothing that he has done (outside of having a family) that bespeaks principle and constitution. To be fair, I don't know anyone who knows Romney so I don't know what he is like behind closed doors. But the persona he projects is so fake and unendearing.

 

I agree with him on policy though. At least his latest iteration. The problem is, I'm not sure if what we see now, is what we'll get later. And that's why I can't support him. Frankly, I just don't believe the words that he says.

 

I envision him being the Warren Burger of our time (please note that I fundamentally agree with many of Burger's decisions, but the analogy is still sound in general).

 

Mitt Romney = Warren Burger

Edited October 23, 2012 by Juror#8

[Doc]

I've always said that you don't necessarily need to like your leader(s). What's more important is that you believe in him (them).

 

As for likeability of public figures, I came to a realization awhile ago that for many, it's all an act: you see what they want you to see.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

5. Ohio is the election. Romney can't win without it. Obama, possible but unlikely

 

Do you realize that, earlier this year year, Beerball moved from Texas to Ohio?

 

The fate of the free world may be decided next week by ... Beerball?

[OCinBuffalo]

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."

Cool. This makes sense. The bailout in Ohio is what I'd be doing if I was Obama, so, why would I be interested in finding contradictory news items?

 

However, the "nuanced auto bailout"....as opposed to just the "auto bailout"? Interesting. If it's a good thing, and easily understood as such, then why the need for nuance? The fact that it has to be teased out and...honed, doesn't give your bother's friend pause?

 

Of course I didn't expect you to grill anyone. It would be great if you did tho...

 

To wit:

1) I just don't get how the hell independents don't matter....especially when Obama is underwater on enthusiasm, by 10-15+ pts, in ALL polls. It's hysterical that Obama is "ahead by 5" in a poll whose internals say the exact opposite: he is 13 pts down in enthusiasm, and losing I votes by 10.

 

2) The ONLY way that works is for a D turnout that SURPASSES 2008. Do any of your guys truly believe that Obama is going to turn out more Ds than 2008? Does anybody believe that the white folks who didn't show up in Ohio for McCain...won't show up for Romney? How the hell is Obama supposed to get another D+6-8 turnout in Ohio(depending on the poll/model) when he is down by double digits in enthusiasm?

 

3) Every single piece of data I can get my hands on shows that a large amount of BS is being spun into the top-line #s, that is largely incongruent with the internals of the same poll, and relies on a projected turnout that is...fantasy. Even the ones that have Romney winning have mostly the same problems. What do your pals think about that?

 

And finally, this one is for you: after last night, do you still think Romney is a lightweight, when it comes to political ability?

[1billsfan]

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

 

There are just way too many differences to be able to compare this 2012 election to the 2004 election. Things like 9/11, the economy, the historical rise of Obama being the first black president with John Kennedy-like popularity, the MSM's treatment of the incumbents.

 

Romney's beat down of Obama in the first debate was much more like Buster Douglas literally and figuratively knocking out the big bad legend of Mike Tyson. Obama lost all of his swagger just like Tyson lost his after that loss.

[Beerball]

 

 

Do you realize that, earlier this year year, Beerball moved from Texas to Ohio?

 

The fate of the free world may be decided next week by ... Beerball?

That's right mother !@#$ers!!! I decide!!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

That's right mother !@#$ers!!! I decide!!!!

Why should I have a problem with that?

 

Do you know the difference between $90 Billion(amount we can get /yr from raising tax rates on the wealthy) and $1.2 Trillion(amount of Federal Deficit this year)?

 

If so, can you subtract those 2 values, and realize that raising taxes won't even come close, and in fact is silly to even talk about, given that we have another $930 Billion to account for?

 

Who is talking about raising taxes...and more spending?

Who is talking about lowering rates, growing the economy, fixing entitlements and cutting a lot of that $1.2 trillion in spending?

 

If you understood so far, you know who is silly, and who is serious. Therefore, why should I worry? The only thing I'm worried about? If you can't do basic subtraction, or tell the difference between a billion and a trillion. Then...we have bigger problems.

Edited October 23, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

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

That's only because you have trouble with big words. I know, I've read many of your "posts".

 

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.

Just because there are untruths out there about both sides (which there are), doesn't mean everything is untrue. Point of fact, Romney was approached by MassGAP to hire more women -- not the other way around. It's semantics, but there's a significant difference between reality and how his campaign spun what happened.

 

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."

I am busting chops. I don't believe that conservatives are valueless -- and I hear what you are saying in this post and agree with a large part of it. All I'm saying is that it's easy to get boxed in by your ideology (myself as well). In this instance, Romney shifted his view (again) to the center and the conservatives are okay with it because he's their guy. Yet when a Dem does it, it's outrageous.

 

The door swings both ways. I'd rather see people stand up and be honest about their partisanship (on both sides) -- instead, everyone has dug in to the "us vs them" mentality that has only grown more insane over the past 15+ years.

 

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.

The difference is that Romeny did not seek them out. A lobbying group (several) came to him and pointed out that his staff was lacking in women. To appease them, and so he'd be able to make this exact point during his White House bid, he took their advice to heart.

 

That's pandering. That's affirmative action. That's playing politics with his staff -- everything the right bashes the left for (and visa versa). Stop spinning and recognize that politics is politics. Both sides play it. Some do it better than others. But Mitt is as crafty as they come in the political game.

 

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?

Stay on point. You're rambling and incoherent.

 

I am not playing against Romney, so I'm not losing anything. Keep on trying to pin the tail on the strawman, you're awesome at it.

[3rdnlng]

That's only because you have trouble with big words. I know, I've read many of your "posts".

 

 

Just because there are untruths out there about both sides (which there are), doesn't mean everything is untrue. Point of fact, Romney was approached by MassGAP to hire more women -- not the other way around. It's semantics, but there's a significant difference between reality and how his campaign spun what happened.

 

 

I am busting chops. I don't believe that conservatives are valueless -- and I hear what you are saying in this post and agree with a large part of it. All I'm saying is that it's easy to get boxed in by your ideology (myself as well). In this instance, Romney shifted his view (again) to the center and the conservatives are okay with it because he's their guy. Yet when a Dem does it, it's outrageous.

 

The door swings both ways. I'd rather see people stand up and be honest about their partisanship (on both sides) -- instead, everyone has dug in to the "us vs them" mentality that has only grown more insane over the past 15+ years.

 

 

The difference is that Romeny did not seek them out. A lobbying group (several) came to him and pointed out that his staff was lacking in women. To appease them, and so he'd be able to make this exact point during his White House bid, he took their advice to heart.

 

That's pandering. That's affirmative action. That's playing politics with his staff -- everything the right bashes the left for (and visa versa). Stop spinning and recognize that politics is politics. Both sides play it. Some do it better than others. But Mitt is as crafty as they come in the political game.

 

Was Romney against hiring more women? Did he fire any men to make room for them? Was this any more scandalous than how the Civil Rights bill was forced down the democrats throat?

[CosmicBills]

Was Romney against hiring more women? Did he fire any men to make room for them? Was this any more scandalous than how the Civil Rights bill was forced down the democrats throat?

I applaud Romney for what he did, make no mistake about that. I'm not attempting to bash him for hiring qualified women, nor am I trying to bash him for going against a core conservative value. What I am trying to poke is the notion that it's okay for him to do this to the dyed in the wool conservatives on the board simply because he's running on the GOP ticket.

 

Well, that and the fact that Romney has reinvented history a tiny bit with this story. I wish he would be a bit braver about it, but I understand how the game is played.