Posted on 10/20/2012 12:09:49 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
They are in a panic over that huge shift in poll numbers of wimmin after the the debates. Today Harris Perry, Chris Hayes and Bonnie Erbe’s leftist shows all started out on ‘wimmin’s issues’ and how Mitt really took all the wrong positions on them and is dodging them now.
They all cited some poll of wimmin in swing states who said that abortion was their #1 issue even above the economy, implying that it was for legalized as a right.
Romney meanwhile is running an ad in swing states saying he is for legal abortion for rape or incest.
They may be referencing this:
When women were asked to identify the most important issue for women, though, the answers were strikingly different. The top concern by far was abortion, an issue that didn't even register among men. Nearly four in 10 women cited it, and those who did supported Obama by more than 3-1. Fifteen percent cited equal rights, pay or opportunity
Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead
Heaven help us!
The Marxist left operates entirely on two principles:
Covet (envy), and
False witness.
Great picture and caption.
You think Bill Clinton and Herman Cain know each other?
I don’t know, but I haven’t seen any women come forward to say Cain was taking it without a key card, and leaving them black and blue afterwards.
Addition:
And strangely, the list of dead long term associates of Herman Cain hasn’t been making it’s way across the internet either.
No you didn’t leave anything out. It’s such a very complex issue, that you could cover it in one simple sentence. LOL
Maybe they were waiting until he had the nomination or POTUS. Paula Jones and some of the others didn't appear publicly till Clinton's second term.
It’s possible. Doug from Upland kept tabs on these types of things better than I did.
I had to back off supporting Cain. It wasn’t something I wanted to do, but if he was another horn-dog, I wanted no part of his campaign.
He had some very attractive features as a candidate but the women coming forward was a bad sign, and then his forced admission that he gave that women money to ‘help her’ and his claim that it was just an innocent friendship, and his wife not knowing about it was the nails in the coffin.
Suddenly it looks like he was lying about it all. Another sad story.
Really too bad. He was very likable and it would have fun even if he just ended up a VP candidate.
I agree with that. Too bad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947597/posts
Skip to comments.
David Brooks advice to Romney: Don’t ‘nitpick’ on ‘small foreign issue of the past’ Benghazi
The Daily Caller ^ | 10/20/12 | Jeff Poor
Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:38:47 AM by markomalley
Call it counter-intuitive, but Mitt Romney shouldn’t focus heavily on what many conservatives are calling President Barack Obama’s biggest foreign policy blunder during Monday night’s upcoming presidential debate, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks.
In his weekly appearance on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Brooks said the debate, which will be dedicated to the topic of foreign affairs, is an opportunity for Romney to talk about other issues than the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya.
“Don’t nitpick about Benghazi,” Brooks said. “Don’t have a little argument. Show some of your personality with some vision of America. Use foreign policy to expose your character, rather than getting lost in the weeds of some small foreign issue of the past. That would be my advice to both sides.”
Brooks said debates are more about personality than substance.
“People are not voting on your foreign policy,” he continued. “They’re voting on your personality, so you better expose that through a foreign policy vision.”
Brooks’ liberal counterpart, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, seemed to agree with Brooks. However, Dionne doubted Romney would resist going after the president on Libya.
“Obama already gave away in an Al Smith Dinner joke that he will mention the words ‘Osama bin Laden,’” Dionne said. “I think Romney will still not resist the chance to finally get his attack on Benghazi right. He’s had two goes at it, and it didn’t work. But I agree with David. I think, for most voters, it’s where are you going to go generally and who are you, because voters don’t expect lots of specificity on events they.....
Thanks for the reference. Since I have never heard Tucker Carlson arguing from a leftist perspective, I wonder why The Daily Caller would want to print that article, unless they are trying to "present all points of view."
The part of that article on which I agree with you is:
Brooks’ liberal counterpart, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.....
Up to that point, Poor just quoted the leftist stooges, who are so clueless that their comments do not help their cause. But for Poor to suggest that Brooks is not a "liberal" shows either an appalling lack of knowledge, sloppy writing, or an intention to deceive.
On the other hand, this article by Poor, White House ‘lied’ on Libya because they had ‘the media in their pocket’ hardly presents a leftist point of view.
If they have a mud slinging witness against Romney or Ryan, it's getting pretty late. However, the GWB DUI story came out in the last week of the 2000 election, and almost got Gore elected.
I hear ya. I agree. NOW was about the common housewife about as much as MADD are about supporting people being able to drink and drive. Liberated women? To do what? To be with other women and forsake men and families?
Frauds or deeply confused... or both...
IMO, Allred better be careful. There’s some rather ugly stuff out there about her own boy wonder too.
I’m not overly optimistic but going after the “binder” comment smells like desperation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.