Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, April 16, 2012 | 2 a.m.
The Draperizing of Mitt Romney is under way. He may not drink or cheat, and he lacks the fictional ad-maker’s charisma, but Democrats, despite the potential perils of such a strategy, remain determined to paint Romney as a throwback to the “Mad Men” era — a hopelessly retro figure who, on policy and in his personal life, is living in the past. President Barack Obama has noted the presumptive GOP nominee uses archaic turns of phrase such as “marvelous” and warned in an email to donors Thursday that his rival would usher in “a social agenda from the 1950s.” The ...
By Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman
Obama and his buddies are running scared. You can sense it as they start reading their private polls. Most independents like myself are going to pick Romney as he represents good decent American values. Obama has been playing the class warfare strategy and it just is not working. Desperate people do desperate things. There is more unemployment in Nevada than ever and Obama has not done much to help our local economy. He will lose in November and deserves to.
"This article reminds me of documentary ""Motherhood by Choice, Not Chance"" which brings alive the history of the struggle for women's reproductive rights in the U.S. and the passion of those who moved abortion from the danger of the back alleys to a safe, legal choice.
To watch the documentary online visit:
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/131...
Smell that? Yeah it stinks of desperation... You thought Romney's aides Etch a Sketch comment was a big gaffe... How about calling out any mother as lazy and incompetent because she chose to raise her children instead of letting them become deadbeats and thugs.. Then again that seems to be the populous Obama is trying to woo over for the next election.
Ann Romney is a menopausal woman with grown sons and has health issues. What century was she a stay at home mom? So who does she relate to in this nation? Even Romney and birth control. Our younger generations are having their children and do tubal ligations or vasectomies. His campaign seems to be focusing on the Baby Boomers and older.
Obama rejects Stay at Home Moms
In an attempt to mock Mitt's family, Obama and Valerie Jarrett sent Hillary Rosens out of the WH to attack "Stay at Home Mom's" like Ann Romney and Michelle Obama, both homemakers who are raising kids and both greatly involved in volunteer work.
Hillary said Ann does not worry about feeding her family and does not known about financial matters. Ann & Mitt started in a one bedroom apartment with their first born having to sleep in their bed. Ann has had cancer, MS, and raised 5 children.
Obama apparently does not agree with married spouses staying at home - not so with unmarried singles - if they are on welfare and using food stamps and free contraception - and are voting for him - they can stay home. Hillary Clinton famously said she would never be caught home baking cookie. Obama disagrees with women homeschooling their kids.
During the 2008 campaign Obama mock Palin for working while she had kids at home. Which is the true new Obama position. We know that Obama's wife was forced to work so that Obama could play politics. She had no choice.
NOW said that "Ann Romney does not have the life experiences or imagination" to speak on financial issues of the home.
Obama is also saying private Volunteer work should not be acknowledged while government handouts are okay.
Under Obama 93% of people who have lost jobs are women. So much for that squandered payola stimulus.
In another case of Obamanation Do as I say - not as I do - - The Obama WH pays women working in the WH 20% less then men. Obama has fewer women in impact positions then Bush.
The WH says that a homemaker that manages the household budget and must reserve money for gasoline while making the budget balance is not capable of understanding the real world or be able to understand the Federal deficit of $1.3 trillion and debt of $16 trillion.
Why is Obama leading the war on women? Why does Obama feel that women can not chose what they want in life. Why doesn't Obama realize that increasing jobs is important to women. Ever since Obama has been walking this back.
Politico is beltway Left-wing.
Here's an article to their publishers political connections..http://www.muckety.com/Robert-L-Allbritton/41954.muckety
This is Las Vegas and our paper can do better than to republish what is basically DNC propaganda.
The founder of Politico got his start with Riggs Bank.
Here is a link to the various scandals which closed them down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank
Conclusion? Politico is not a reputable source for one's news.
Poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15...
The choices are clear. Vote for Romney and go backwards to the Bush depression, deregulation, privatize Social Security and Medicare, and more unneccessary wars.
"I'm going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I'm probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go," Romney said. "Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...
Businesses aren't investing. Retiring Baby-boomers and consumers with means aren't spending to the extent they did prior to 2008 due to economic uncertainty caused by Obama's inability to manage our nation's finances. We need to better manage our nation's finances and grow the economic pie, it's the only way out. Currently, 58.5% of the U.S. population are working. During full employment, 63% of Americans are working. That means 12 to 14 million people need jobs. Dividing the economic pie will not help these folks get jobs. Obama's liberal policies have shown to be unfavorable to most Americans. Obama's two biggest legislative accomplishments were the passage of his $831 billion economic stimulus package and his $1.8 trillion health care law. Last month, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 31% of Americans believe his "economic program" made things better, compared with 67% who said it had "no real effect" or even made conditions worse.
The democratic party is losing moderates for a reason. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have lurched left in a center-right country. They demagogue business, religion, freedom and our desire to live independently. American's top concerns are jobs, the economy and reducing our debt & deficit spending. On these three fronts, Obama has failed us. Obama's disastrous record and lack of a real plan to address the nation's most pressing problems are reasons enough to elect a new President come November.
Once, just ONCE, I'd like to see a candidate who can even remotely relate to what it's like to be a Middle Class American .... it will never happen and ALL these rich fat-cat politicians have NO CLUE what the poor and the working poor (formerly known as Middle Class Americans) face on a daily basis.
Don Draper??? Really??? No way... Don Draper's dullest day couldn't be as boring as Romney's most scintillating day!However- Thurston Howell III and clueless Lovey come to mind as '60's icons closest to the cluelessness of Mitt and Ann!
You Sharron Angle voters need to drink the Romney kool-aid now.
Because the GOP says so.
Obey.
May I please please please have some of the drugs that the 722am poster must be on? They must really mess with the mind....
Ms. Rosen said what she said. Nobody said what Ms. Rosen said other than Ms. Rosen (who, although she had no reason to, apologized for what she said). Ms. Rosen does not work for the President or for the White House or for the Democratic Party. She works for herself.
Furthermore, Ms. Rosen's comments were about Mitt Romney. They were not about Ann Romney. She was being critical of Mitt Romney, who said that his wife "reports" to him, as if she were his employee. She was being critical of Mitt Romney, who gets his advice on what is important to the women of the country from his wife, who can't possibly be an ideal consultant on issues of the world, if she's been working at home all these years.
To write that the President of the United States "rejects stay at home moms" because of something that Ms. Rosen said is ludicrous. About as ludicrous as my saying that Mitt Romney can't spell because of what one of his supporters writes in a local newspaper.
"Ms. Rosen does not work for the President or for the White House or for the Democratic Party. She works for herself."
Your right. But Ms. Rosen visited the White House reportedly 35 times.
From WSJ:
"In a February article about the unwieldily named Democratic National Committee chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, The Wall Street Journal noted that "Obama advisers have occasionally told her to 'tone it down,' " an end toward which she agreed "to enlist two seasoned Democratic female pros, Anita Dunn and Hilary Rosen, to begin giving her occasional political advice and media training."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
Talk about retro. Making Mitt's religious beliefs a reason to be against him is really dialing the clock backwards. I remember JFK and how he was maligned in some quarters because he was a Catholic (although, as it turned out, not such a faithful one). For anyone to go down that road tells more about him or her than it does about Mitt. It exposes not only their bigotry and malevolence, but their lack of understanding as to what most of us stand for and adhere to. This isn't some Arab state. In the USA, most of us respect all religions and even those without any religious preference. We instinctively know it is unfair and unseemly to disparage anothers religious beliefs. As individuals, we have an absolute right to believe in or against whatever we like. To band together in opposition against anyone for their religious beliefs is wrongheaded, in my estimation. There are enough policy issues to takes sides on. As is color, so should religion be left out of the equation. BTW, I am neither Mormon nor Christian.
" . . . elect a new president who would create middle class jobs."
If Romney is such a savior/creator of jobs, why did he off-shore so many in the name of higher profits that he holds off-shore? (http://www.barackobama.com/romney-offsho...)
And if Obama is responsible for the negative job situation in Nevada, is he then responsible for the positive job gains in states reporting such?
obama a jerk and a light weight.
Couldn't run an ice cream stand on Waikiki beach.
DON DRAPER THROWBACK??? Who's ... What? .... This author should be fired. Who in the year 2012 uses DON DRAPER THrow what? I'm educated but maybe I'm just not old enough to have alzheimer's which is the age I'd need to be to understand what DON DRAPER THROWBACK is suppose to mean.
Obama paints Romney as Don Draper?
That's rich coming from a guy who more closely resembles Karl Marx than his self proclaimed idol Abraham Lincoln.
In fact, if one compares Obamas recent ranks and opines he seems to be operating and almost quoting from the Marxist playbook.
Don Draper? Compared to Barrack Karl Marx Obama, we should be so lucky.
What is really hilarious is to see Jim Acejoker Reid continually call the President Barack Hussein Obama! Is there a reason that calling him President Obama is insufficient since that is his official title? Respect is due to the office no matter who currently occupies it.
Maybe we will see you posting Willard Mitt Romney if things go his way.. Or will it then be President Romney?
As for religion, as others have said we must respect all religions in this country, however we can disagree with those religions beliefs and make associations between the organization and their members. There is nothing wrong with this. Certainly anti gun advocates would consider a candidates NRA membership as a reason to not vote for them. So Pro-Choice and progressive people may hold a religious affiliation against a candidate as it goes against their beliefs.
Its not disrespectful to the religion to disagree with it personally and it certainly is something to be considered when electing someone to an office that influences policy and funding. After all, we normally elect people on the basis of what they believe whether it be economic policy or foreign affairs.. its all based on what we believe and who we think will foster those beliefs in the form of policies.
Jim the Joker:
This comment section is Mitt and Hussein and Draper and Ann. You comment complaining about the moderator has no reference to anything that should be commented on here, make a point on task, you won't disappear so much.
Regarding the article itself, Willard needs to realize how country club he is to have a chance, he is a walking -- talking -- plastic smiling gaffe machine without a soul. So far. He has time to get salvation. Not much though, not much.
Don Draper is a fictional TV character and at least 99% of the people in this world have never heard of him because they don't spend their lives watching the TV.
But is Mitt Romney like Don Draper? If so, then Don Draper's family must have baptized Don's atheist Father-in-Law after death, into Don's religion.
We know for a fact that "Mitt Romney's family baptized Ann Romney's atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death". This is Ann's father. The poor fool wasn't even allowed to live his life in eternity as an atheist of choice - Mitt and his family has to come along and change his religion after death. That sucks. These people are so manipulative and aggressive they feel they can control the souls of the dead.
SEE:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
Let me be perfectly clear - a person's religion is their own choice but does anyone want this type of mentality putting their trigger finger on nuclear weapons and commanding the American Military?
Does anyone want a Baptizer in Chief at the focal point of declaring war, who believes he has more power in the after life, or ANY POWER, then in this one?
Mitt Romney and his family believe they can control a person's choice after that person has died. Dude, that's real scary.
Mitt Romney nor any of his family have NEVER entered the US Military. They don't serve America, they enrich themselves from the experience.
Is that true for Don Draper? If so, how do we know? Mitt doesn't fight for America, he fights for the privileged, his own family and those who make millions while paying lower taxes then those who labor for a living. Mitt Romney believes in a tax system that penalizes people who work by the clock, that they should pay more because they are less important then those who control the money flow - does Don Draper do this? If so, how do we know?
This article is a joke. It is raving fiction just like Don Draper. The author should get a life, up up and away from the boob tube before commenting on reality.
Does anyone want a President of the United States who feels he can control the souls of the DEAD against their will in this life? If that is the case, Mitt has the ability to send ALL dead soldiers to Heaven if they die fighting for America. Scary.
Hmm, Madmen seems to be on the campaign trail. Perhaps a complaint to the Federal campaign commission would ban them from openly using the show as a campaign device for one side or the other.
Jim the Joker:
If you say you are not being treated fairly here I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You and your brothers in funny farms are granted wide berth here to ridicule, insult, defame, and be all around negative Obama/democratic party bashers.
Day in and out you are shown the wonder of the first amendment. I really wish your side was as generous as the LasVegasSun.com is to you.
What I really wish is that people would read and understand what the First Amendment says and does.
The First Amendment prevents government, and ONLY government, from infringing on "freedom of speech" (unless there's an overriding societal interest in doing so - laws against yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater being the best example).
The First Amendment does not prevent anyone else (businesses, people, newspapers, clubs, etc.) from infringing on the free speech rights of anybody. Go to work and call your boss a loser to her face. The First Amendment does NOT prevent her from firing you. Be a member of the Mormon church and tell them you're gay. The First Amendment does NOT prevent them from excommunicating you. Write a comment on the Sun's website that does not adhere to the policies of the Sun. The First Amendment does NOT prevent them from removing the comment.
bostonboy:
Well stated. I will concur that my answer was more pie in the sky than yours, though I still stand by my general point about the LasVegasSun.com being very liberal with the anti-Obama/democratic party folks.
To all the dems and libs consider this. If Romney is a throwback to the fifties, then you of all people should support him. It was the parenting of the fifties that bred the current entitlement society. It was them that gave thier children everything so they would have a better life than they did growing up in a post depression society. So if Romney is so old fashiond then you should embrace him as he would be the one to be sure you are taken care of.
So "Obama sez Romney uses archaic phrases such as "marvelous." Perhaps this is just the way of a genteel and well-manered man. The British use it all the time, and we got out language from them. I think it is a rather impolite, and undignified, comment coming from Obama.
But what is WRONG with using the word: "MARVELOUS?" Perhaps Obama has had a lack-luster life - until he became a multi-millionaire, and President. I used to consider Las Vegas as a "marvelous" place, and so did the LV Chamber of Commerce - who portrayed Las Vegas as "marvelous" (while also using similar eloquent phrases for maketing purposes - and it worked).
I guess some people in Las Vegas believe the "marvelous" is suitable for the tourists who come here, but apparently, others who see this word as "archaic" lack any appreciation for the English Language - - which, by the way, is made up of thousands of eloquent and useful words from French, Italian, German, Spanish, and other languages.
As for slandering Mitt Romney's religion - that is FOUL PLAY, and the pundits who trash his faith - in Jesus Christ, by the way) - should READ the U.S. Constitution. It says in ARTICLE I.: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitng the free exercise thereof ...."
So, if the Congress is not allowed to "DAMM" RELIGION - because it is against the "LAW OF THE LAND" - what makes some people think they can slander MITT ROMNEY and HIS RELIGION - just because he is a Mormon?!
Further, ARTICLE VI. Sec. 3. of the U.S Constitution states: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a Qkualification to any Office...."
So what is to be gained by talking about ANYONE's religion?
Law abiding citizens - and Oothers who spew their slanderous remarks - GET THEIR FREEDOM FROM THE SAME CONSTITUTION that prohibits such abuse toward candidates for public office. It is NOT a matter of free speech; it IS a matter of slandering a candidate that will (potentially) be elected - under the RULES of the U.S. Constitution. THAT is not subject to interpretation.
While we are discussing Mormons, do you know that SENATOR HARRY REID (of Nevada) IS A MORMON? And Reid has been in the U.S. SENATE for more than 30 years. Where is the outcry about Reid and his faith? I guess that because Reid is a DEMOCRAT, the press will not slander his faith.
And, there are 20+ MORMONS serving in the U.S. CONGRESS.
So, I suggest that this line of discontent be DROPPED, before someone reminds the nation - in a similar, "UNFAIR" and disrespectiful manner - that BARRACK H. OBAMA is an ISLAMIC MUSLIM (aka a self-avowed Christian).
So, people with evil in their minds want to start a "verbal war" - which will take place on the "stage" of a national election campaign for president - keep it up, and this topic of religion will serve to demonstrate that Democrats could care less about the Constitution, the Law-of-the-Land, OR the citizens of the United States.
Socratic Inkwell:
I hope you remembered tampons when you were out shopping today.
Did you know that 50% of the republican voters in Mississippi's recent primary think Obama is a Muslim?
What you are threatening is already happening. I mean Ted Nugent is making veiled threats recently about either being dead or in jail if Obama is reelected. I fear that folks I will call "Others" (retardlican/extreme white winger/dictator wannabee/teabagger/George Zimmerman wannabees) are going to kill Obama if it looks like he will win.
Then you will get a Biden/Hillary combo that will put you all out to pasture, where we will lock you in with your guns. Happy trails...