THERE’S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT MITT
Posted by: Pat Johnson on: May 12, 2012
Few of us would like to be reminded of things we did as teenagers. While our bodies were growing our maturity was trying to catch up.
Women are often referred to as “mean girls” when it comes to juvenile behavior. We forget that boys can be equally offensive to one another and the revelation that Mitt Romney’s behaviors as a teen were nothing short of despicable if the facts bear this out.
I can’t think of anything more stressful for a teen than to feel excluded from the pack. Facing a daily barrage of harassment must weigh heavily on emotional makeup when you are singled out for mistreatment by your peers. We are all aware that the rate of teen suicide has risen due in large part to the availability of “social networking” sites that play on the vulnerabilities of teens unable to escape the taunts.
What Mitt Romney did almost 50 years ago is deplorable. We are unable to accurately measure the damage that was done to his victim but the assumption can be drawn that it was not healthy. The event was so egregious that a few of those who took part carried the guilt into adulthood. But not so Mr. Romney.
He laughs it off while denying the episode ever took place. His memory “does not recall” this event though there appears to be enough witnesses who have come forward who do. What does this say about a man running for POTUS? Not much. A half hearted “apology” is all he can offer while still maintaining a half assed attempt to brush it all away.
There was always something about Mittens that turned me off. Apparently I was not alone since it was evident during the GOP primary that the voters were feeling much the same ambivalence by making it almost impossible for him to climb higher than 25% in the polls. For a few months there even his other “nutjob” challengers enjoyed a higher approval rating before they each imploded under the weight of their own baggage.
Should Mitt be held responsible for things he did as a teen? Is this fair? Looking back isn’t there something in all of our youthful behavior we would prefer to forget? Yes, but then again, none of us here are running to be the leader of the free world.
What the episode in Mitt’s past illustrates is a young man, confident that his behavior was acceptable because of who he was while acting as the leader of the pack to humiliate a young man he disliked. He preyed upon a weaker person, held him up for ridicule, and took pleasure in doing so. There were no consequences to be suffered if you happened to be the entitled son of a sitting governor. From this vaunted perch empathy was in short supply.
This is a man who is unable to defend a member of his staff forced to resign because he is gay. A man who would have “chosen” other words than what were used by Rush Limbaugh in attacking a young woman who testified before congress on behalf of contraception. A man who does not “think about the poor”. A man who believes you can simply “lie” it all away. This is a “leader”?
What we have learned about Mitt Romney is that his feeling of entitlement is his leading issue. There is no “core” to Mitt and never has been. Deep down he despises those who do not share his rarified world of money and means. His religion alone stipulates that he remain “apart” from the mainstream. He has managed to do just that.
For anyone who has been “bullied” the effects of the heartbreak never goes away. There is always a reminder that once upon a time that feeling of utter helplessness was felt and escape was not easy. Mitt seems incapable of understanding his role, or that of his victim, since he is still the same spoiled, entitled brat he was 50 years ago. Unlikable then, unlikable now.
For those “searching” for Mitt’s personality it is pretty certain that what he once was he still is.
A hateful bully.
Evening Widdershins: The Women of 2012
Posted by: madamab on: May 11, 2012
- In: 2012 Election | Feminism | Open Thread | Politics | Women
- 14 Comments
Evening, Widdershins! It seems the press is finally starting to figure out that yes, women are going to be extremely important in the 2012 election – and not just the Presidential one.
Democrats, as they aggressively seek to turn women’s concerns into a rallying call of the presidential election, are leaning heavily on female candidates to retain control of the Senate.
From Massachusetts to Hawaii, a record number of Democratic women – six incumbents and at least five challengers – are running for seats this year. That eclipses 1992’s vaunted “Year of the Woman,’’ when 10 women sought entry into the country’s most exclusive political chamber.
The race in Massachusetts pitting Senator Scott Brown, a Republican, against his presumed Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, has captured the most headlines nationwide, but others could be just as crucial for Democrats.
Now you all know that I am a huge fan of advancing women in politics, but I realized fairly early on in my advocacy that it really does matter WHICH women. Electing Republican women to the Senate and House simply does not work. Look at the way the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was passed by the House but not the Senate in 2009, continues to languish – and with good reason: Not one Republican woman will vote for it, not even the “moderates” Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Imagine the power that would come from real sisterhood amongst these Senators of the female persuasion – but alas, despite the claims of some, “social issues” (aka abortion and same-sex marriage) are NOT the only issues that divide liberal from conservative women. And so it goes.
The fact is that Republicans have been alienating women to an unprecedented degree in the past couple of years, mainly because they have stopped lying about their intentions and just gone for it – let all their inhibitions go, and jumped on the Train to Insane. Yes, they think that women who want abortions deserve to be raped by a medical instrument beforehand! Yes, they think that an unfertilized egg is the same as a person! Yes, they think that a miscarriage should be the same, legally, as an abortion. Hell, YES THEY DO, and they’re proud of it, so you’ll just have to lie back and think of Clooney, women of America!
“NATURALLY” HILLARY
Posted by: Pat Johnson on: May 11, 2012
There was a time when I would NEVER, EVER consider leaving the house without full make up and every hair in place. Never!
This is the same me who was in labor and made her husband wait while I put on make up and did my hair before he took me to the hospital to deliver each of my 4 kids.
Going without makeup was an equivalent to a mortal sin. At least a half hour of my daily routine was devoted to the application of makeup, hair styling, and selecting an outfit free of one tiny wrinkle that could spoil the entire effect of “perfection”. Having a “bad hair day” was no joke.
I dealt with the public, interviewing candidates and attending meetings that were sure to include men so it was my “duty” to look my best at all times. I devoted many hours to complete this function, even carrying an extra pair of pantyhose should I ever – god forbid! – find myself with a run traveling up my leg. What would people think?
But that attention to detail begin to subside once I retired. I no longer had to wear those “power suits” and pumps that spelled “success” when I could as easily reach for a comfortable pair of sweats, combined with a loose top and my Birkenstocks, to complete my wardrobe for the day. Now that I had found the time to slap on that fussy makeup I didn’t need it. What a relief!
It was about a year ago when I found myself getting ready for a small dinner party and discovered that an all important ingredient was needed to complete the meal. Running to the store I realized that for the first time in my life I was out in public without my makeup! Horrors! Remember, this is the same woman who would not think of paying the paperboy without having “my face on”!
No one dropped dead at the sight of me in my natural state. Children did not run for cover at the checkout register. No one was holding garlands of garlic to ward off my presence. I had made it to and from the store without getting arrested!
I began to appreciate the freedom from daily preparations of slapping on tons of makeup (and you seem to need more of it as time marches on!) and the worry over how I looked every second of the day became its own reward. Don’t get me wrong: I still bathed each day and wore clean underwear, but the time and effort spent before the mirror was gradually being reduced. Comfort was all that was necessary to complete the image.
Days of squeezing my feet into uncomfortable but stylish shoes were finally over! My poor feet could at last breathe. Those pesky pantyhose were no longer rolling down my “muffin top”. I was no longer touching up the mascara or applying layers of lip gloss just to take in the mail. I was free!
So too Hillary. Much was made of her appearing in public without makeup and a glamorous hairstyle as she went “au natural” in public. For years we watched as she changed hairstyles and pantsuits as the public commented about her appearance. This was “natural” Hillary striking the same attitude as myself: take it or leave it, it’s all the same to me!
I gave up dying my hair a few years back. Gave all the power suits to charity. Retired those umpteen pairs of trendy shoes and invested in Birkies and comfy slippers. I’m assuming the salesclerks at Macy’s makeup counter are wondering where I am. Nail salons moaned my absence. Hair stylists were sending out Amber Alerts. Where was I?
I’m still here but have reverted to being myself. Just as Hillary made her declaration to fashion, it feels good to be able to so. Perhaps she has set a trend of sorts that just being yourself is what matters most. But maybe not.
I still revert to type when enjoying a social function. I’m still willing to put in the time to “look just right” when the occasion arises. It’s just that now there’s a different edge to it: that I am able to go either way without living up to somebody else’s expectations of “feminity”.
It is unfortunate that women are judged by how they look but that is the culture we live in. Having made that effort over many years I understand the need. But I no longer have to abide by it. And you know what, after all this time it just feels right to say so.
But like Hillary, I just don’t give a damn! Good on her for taking that stand. Chunky glasses over contact lenses? Go for it!
You gotta love her!
(Widdershins Lounge Tonight!)
A GUEST POST BY FUZZYBEAR
Posted by: Fredster on: May 10, 2012
Banned in North Carolina
We have a guest post today from our favorite bear, Fuzzy! Enjoy the post.
North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage
This is Wednesday May 9th’s headlines. We are supposed to be Shocked and Indignant that the conservative state that sent Jesse Helms to the U S Senate 5 times (that is 30 years, or 210 Dog years) did not reject what 29 other states have done to their constitution. Somehow, I cannot get angry at this. My own Florida could not stop the prohibition of Marriage Equality, and we have a pretty high bar requiring a 60% super-majority to amend our constitution.
Do not get me wrong I think using ballot initiatives to legislate Civil Rights is not only wrong but also silly. These same people could conceivably pass state constitutional amendments to outlaw Evolution, Gravity, and Doughnuts with two holes. I could just see the signs at the borders of states like Mississippi and North Carolina “Welcome to North Carolina hold tightly to the ground, Gravity is illegal here” or “Mississippi State Line, Evolution Stops Here.” (sorry I could not resist)
The thing about these laws getting on the books is that it is bucking the national trend: 50% of Americans believe in Marriage Equality. That is up from 27% that supported Marriage Equality15 years ago. These laws like Segregation are a last gasp of a shrinking and ignorant minority trying to force its will on what is rapidly becoming the vast majority.
In a way these constitutional amendments’ very existence show us how we have already won the argument. The fact that something is outlawed means there is a real fear that it may become fact. Because of the fact that Gays and Lesbians already live in committed relationships that are de facto marriages, all we need is for them to become de jure. The recent repeal of don’t ask don’t tell and the allowing of openly gay people to serve in the military has opened the door. Next comes job protection and marriage.
Of course, we could do an end run around these less enlightened states and our not quite up to speed fellow citizens by passing the ERA. If 51% of the population is female and 10% is LGBT and half of those LGBT folks are men, the ERA would extend full the American Franchise to over 56% of the population.
The struggle for women’s rights and LGBT Equality is the same. The struggle for Civil Rights and Women’s Rights is the same. The struggle of LGBT Rights and Civil Rights is the same. To paraphrase Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” and she has amended that to “LGBT Rights are Human Rights”. I think our girl is on to something the rest of the world needs to catch up to.
Many wonder when will the ERA become law enshrined in the Constitution next to the laws that allow us to speak freely and worship or refrain from worship as we see fit, the amendment that freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote. How long must we wait?
I believe that the ERA will be ratified or if necessary reintroduced and ratified after 2017, shortly after Hillary Rodham Clinton is inaugurated as the 45th President. What a great thing for 38 of the states to do to acknowledge what is de facto true that:
1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state because of sex.
2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
I mean how illogical is it for the leader of the Free World not to have the guaranty of rights that the men who serve under her have? Just as Suffrage was extended when it became clear that the nation could not win the first “War to End all War” without the cooperation of women, Hillary with the Bully pulpit will make a case for the ERA.
That will be a day as great as winning WWII.
NOTE: We know now that Obama has since come out in favor of same-sex marriage.
Activist Wednesday: Power to the People! Wait…Not THOSE People…
Posted by: madamab on: May 9, 2012
- In: Class Warfare | Current Events | Economy | Government | Morning Widdershins | Open Thread | Politics | Republicans
- 34 Comments
Be careful what we ask for, eh, Widdershins? Some of us who lean rather strongly to the left can tend to over-idolize the power of collaboration. Sometimes teamwork can elevate our minds and spirits, and produce great results for all; and sometimes, sincere, lemming-like stupidity can overwhelm the more thoughtful team members amongst us.
Take two primary elections yesterday. The first was the primary for the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R-Koch Brothers Inc.). For months, students, teachers and other supporters of the power of collective barganing were out in the Capitol, protesting Walker’s aggressive public union-busting agenda. When that failed to move him from his path of destruction, they joined with the Democratic Party and took advantage of Wisconsin’s recall laws to try to get the worst offenders out of office ASAP. The process got rolling, and soon four Democratic challengers appeared (two of whom are wimminz!), along with two Republican challengers (one, Gladys Huber, is a wimminz who is running as a Democrat). There are several other Republicans who are also facing recall elections today, thanks to the activism of those tireless Wisconsin defenders of collective bargaining rights. And of course, some recall elections were held last year, with mixed results.
As I write this, the election results are in: Democrat Tom Barrett (Mayor of Milwaukee) has won the primary. Whatever happens when the final election is held, I am proud of the people of Wisconsin for staying strong and determined and making this happen. The more of these corrupt, lying mouthpieces of the 1% that are toppled, the better off we’ll be.
And then…there’s the OTHER special election that happened in Indiana yesterday. Can you say “Republican National Implosion?” I knew you could.
Sen. Richard Lugar, the third longest-serving member of the Senate, went down to a primary defeat tonight to his Tea Party-backed opponent in the Republican primary.
State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, backed by tea partiers and conservative campaign groups outside the state, ousted Lugar in Indiana’s GOP primary, the Associated Press projected.
Am I a fan of Famous Bipartisan Grand Old Man Lugar? No, but he did sometimes vote with Democrats on some initiatives – and the voters of Indiana supported him for doing so. Mourdock, on the other hand, was backed by Dick Armey’s Army, and they don’t come from Indiana, apparently.
Mourdock’s win was expected by political operatives in D.C. and Indiana after an expensive campaign in which outside groups flocked to the Hoosier State. A total of 12 groups spent $4.6 million, only one of them based in Indiana.
[snip]
Tea partiers and conservative groups replayed their successful 2010 playbook to defeat Lugar, the first establishment casualty of 2012. The anti-Lugar charge was led by the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks, which routinely pick inexpensive states and vulnerable Republican incumbents, attacking them for moderate votes. In Indiana, that meant Lugar’s votes for TARP, against an earmarks moratorium, and in favor of Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The HORROR!
Search
L 2012: Support Your Local Lefties!
Are You…Too Left/Liberal For Obama?
Recent Comments