Plan B Forum

First, up, Congressman Allen "Tail Gunner" West reveals the presence of a large Communist cell on Capital Hill:

Republican Rep. Allen West says many congressional Democrats are Communists

At an event late Tuesday — shortly after The Fix wrote about how West is too much of a bomb-thrower to be the GOP’s vice presidential nominee — the freshman congressman suggested that as many as 81 Democrats in Congress are not only secret Communists, but actual members of the Communist Party.

When a questioner asked West about Marxists in “the American legislature,” some in the crowd jeered, but West took a different approach.

“No, it’s a good question,” he said, adding: “I believe there is about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party.”

After a long pause, West adds that he is talking about the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 76 of the more liberal Democrats in the U.S. House.

West’s comment clearly states that these members of Congress are also actual members of the Communist Party, though. There is no evidence to support that.

West campaign manager Tim Edson pointed out that some Democratic members of Congress have traveled to Communist Cuba in recent years. (So have Republicans.)

He also noted that certain Democratic members have also praised Cuban President Fidel Castro. (For the record, Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush and former California congresswoman Diane Watson, both members of the Progressive Caucus, have both praised Castro.)

“He stands by the comments,” Edson said. “Call them what you want; they’re clearly people who oppose capitalism and free markets and individual economic freedom. So, if the shot fits.”

Pressed on whether those members are actual Communists, Edson said the label isn’t the point.

“We can quibble about the terminology used to describe them, but it’s clear,” he said. “Whatever you call people that oppose capitalism and free markets and individual economic freedom — maybe it’s ‘socialist,’ maybe it’s ’Communist’ — but that’s the point the congressman was making, and he stands by the words.”

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said West is trying to turn back the clock to the days of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) and the so-called “Red Scare.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html

“We can quibble about the terminology used to describe them, but it’s clear,” he said. “Whatever you call people that oppose capitalism and free markets and individual economic freedom — maybe it’s ‘socialist,’ maybe it’s ’Communist’ — but that’s the point the congressman was making, and he stands by the words.”

Look, I have just about zero use for the Progressive Caucus, and I'm sure it contains folks who are ideologically hostile to capitalism, but that is a far far cry from being "members of the Communist Party"....

When you're accusing people of something that specific, the "terminology" does matter. It's not quibbling. What Mr. West said is simply false.

This is precisely the sort of thing that has gone so far in coarsening and poisoning the political dialog in this country. On this board, we have a moron who frequently likes to accuse Republicans of being guilty of "treason"; what West has done is exactly the same kind of thing.

Fortunately, because West (much like our resident moron) has such an established reputation for saying ignorant outrageous things, the amount of damage he can do is limited; almost no one takes him seriously. I haven't done any research into his re-election prospects, but I don't imagine they're very good.)





And now we have a Democrat that doesn't think raising five boys constitutes "work":

Hilary Rosen says Ann Romney never worked 'day in her life'

The presidential campaign exploded Thursday into a bitter debate over women's work, a day after a Democratic adviser made a dismissive remark about stay-at-home mom Ann Romney, wife of the GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

Wednesday night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen said Romney, who raised five now-grown sons, had "never worked a day in her life." Mitt Romney had said earlier that his wife had relayed to him the economic concerns of women around the country.

Rosen's comment reignited a mom-culture war that dates back to Hillary Rodham Clinton's 1992 remark that instead of working as a lawyer, she "could have stayed home and baked cookies." It convulsed the political Twitterverse — both Rosen and Ann Romney were trending topics on the social-networking site — and cable television networks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 54235706/1

Yes, let's attack the most sympathetic and likable person on the other side, and insult all stay at home moms to boot....Brilliant....

I have to give some credit here to Team Obama and the DNC...they recognized immediately what a boneheaded play this was, and lost no time condemning it without reservation and tossing Ms. Rosen under the bus, (trying to claim that she provided no advice to either...though she has been to the White House 35 times...an average of once a month....since Obama became President, and her PR firm has a lucrative contract with the DNC)

Ms. Rosen herself eventually apologized. (though she really dragged her feet about it, and initially attempted to defend what she said)

I also have to give a little credit to the media which did, give a reasonable amount of coverage to this.

Unlike the case where Obama was caught on an open mike telling the water boy for the dictator of Russia that he could be more "flexible" after the election....(which was largely treated as a joke, and didn't receive anywhere near the coverage that dopey "etch-a-sketch" comment from a Romney aid got.)

I put these two stories together in the same OP because even though to they appear completely unrelated, they seem to me to illustrate the same sort of brain-dead rhetoric about the opposition that has done so much to harden the deep political divide in this country and make useful discussion and compromise so difficult.

Maybe Hilary was talking about how a woman who is filthy rich wouldn't need to work a day in her life and would have nannies and other help that could raise her children for her.

Of course, making an honest assumption about a presidential wannabe's wife is almost never politically correct.

One is a member of congress and saying something factually wrong.


The other is a political 'strategist' who was factually correct about the wife of a presidential candidate who said (in January) that poor women with 2-year old children should be made to go to work.


False equivalence. Tiresome.


yrs,
rubato

This is classic example of taking one sentence out of context.

It was actually pretty hard to find a complete transcript of Hillary Rosen's remarks on CNN (if the media is so damn "liberal" I wonder why that is? ) but for anyone who cares, here it is:

With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like. But he doesn't connect on that issue either. What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife that's what I'm hearing.'

Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future.

So I think that, yes, it's about these positions and yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions. But there's something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. He just seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women and I think that comes across and I think that that's going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn't really see us as equal.

(source)

In the very next sentence Rosen made it crystal clear what she was talking about ("She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing..."), yet how many times have you seen any of that sentence in the news?

So yes, she's stupid for uttering a sentence that could sound really bad when taken completely out of context, but no, she did not say a "stupid thing".



BTW...some of Mitt Romney's previously stated views on working mothers

rubato wrote:One is a member of congress and saying something factually wrong.

The other is a political 'strategist' who was factually correct about the wife of a presidential candidate who said (in January) that poor women with 2-year old children should be made to go to work.

False equivalence. Tiresome.

LOL :l

It amuses me that the only responses to my post so far are from people defending what Rosen said , and in at least one case actually going so far as to try to claim that saying "she never worked a day in her life" is true...



Gee whiz, I really wish the White House and the DNC had you folks working for them.....

If they had tried to defend, rationalize, and explain that blatantly insulting remark the way you are, rather than forthrightly immediately condemn it without caveats or excuses, it would have been far more beneficial for my party's Presidential prospects....

Lord Jim wrote: If they had tried to defend, rationalize, and explain that blatantly insulting remark the way you are, rather than forthrightly immediately condemn it without caveats or excuses, it would have been far more beneficial for my party's Presidential prospects....

Is it really an insult to say that someone has never worked a day in her life when describing someone who never needed to work a day in her life due to her economic status?

As Econoline demonstrated, taking one line out of the context of the total message gives it a much different meaning.

Only people who want to be offended will be.

Is it really an insult to say that someone has never worked a day in her life when describing someone who never needed to work a day in her life due to her economic status?

Yes, of course it is.

Being wealthy doesn't ipso facto make one a layabout.

The clear intent of what Rosen was saying was that because Ann Romney had never had a paying job, she had "never worked a day in her life". There is no "context" that you can put that in that makes it anything other than a gross insult.

Lord Jim wrote: Being wealthy doesn't ipso facto make one a layabout.

The clear intent of what Rosen was saying was that because Ann Romney had never had a paying job, she had "never worked a day in her life". There is no "context" that you can put that in that makes it anything other than a gross insult.

Saying that someone had never had a "paying job" when it is a fact would not be an insult. Saying that she never worked a day in her life, in the context of her full statement, is intended to point out that Romney could not possibly relate to the working class that is suffering in our current economy.

Yes, that might be interpreted as a put down to someone who wants to convince us that she relates to women who care about economic issues. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Since this bit of idiocy was quoted, I'm going to respond to it.

One is a member of congress and saying something factually wrong.

The other is a political 'strategist' who was factually correct about the wife of a presidential candidate who said (in January) that poor women with 2-year old children should be made to go to work.

False equivalence. Tiresome.

First of all unless one has knowledge that all Ann Romney has been doing is lying around watching Springer and popping bon bons, to assert that the claim "she's never worked a day in her life" is factually correct is pure ass-talk....(not surprising considering the source; a little disappointing that someone else would be quoting it approvingly....)

The "honest assumption" to make in this case is, absent any evidence to the contrary, is that raising five boys is hard work...

Good Lord, even Obama managed to get that much....

As for the "false equivalence", yes, I suppose there's something to that....

Since West is a marginal political player who no one takes seriously, and Rosen is a top tier political operator with White House access and who is highly regarded in Demo Party political circles, her comments are potentially far more damaging to the national dialog than West's....

ETA

(I saw Joe's latest post when I was posting)

Saying that someone had never had a "paying job" when it is a fact would not be an insult.

Implying that not having "a paying job" is the same thing as "not working" is enormously insulting, and is precisely what Rosen did.

Lord Jim wrote:

The clear intent of what Rosen was saying was that because Ann Romney had never had a paying job, she had "never worked a day in her life". There is no "context" that you can put that in that makes it anything other than a gross insult.

The clause* that comes directly after the often-quoted part is obviously part of the same statement, and is obviously meant to clarify what came immediately before it, and omitting the second part obviously distorts the "clear intent" of the statement as a whole.

His wife has actually never worked a day in her life; she's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future.

* Yes I know there was a period (full-stop) rather than a semicolon in the version I quoted before; however, the original statement was oral, not written, and whatever punctuation is used is inserted by the person who types the transcript.

You see a "clarification" I see an additional statement...

In any even I don't how anything one says before or after:

"His wife has actually never worked a day in her life"

Can possibly make that statement any less insulting, false and stupid a thing to say....

Unless of course the next thing out of one's mouth is something like, "I'm sorry that's not what I meant to say; I apologize. What I meant to say was...."

I believe that you (Jim) are too focused on one quoted line rather than the meaning of the complete statement, which results in us not discussing the same issue.

In other words, (and I repeat myself) I see the point Hilary was conveying was that Ann Romney cannot relate to the working women in today's world because she has led a privileged life.

You see a quoted line that would be an insult if it weren't used in the context in which it was used.

Now, I know you've already claimed that there is NO context that would make what Hilary said anything less than an insult, but I see it this way...

If a government official were to say that Timothy Geithner has never shined his own shoes or fixed his own computer so he could not possibly relate to the shoe shiners or underpaid computer techs on the streets of America, some people would take that as an implication that Timothy had quaddriver shine his shoes & fix his computer for him and therefore owned at least one lard assed slave - which would be a serious insult to Timothy.

Others who tend to see the whole picture rather than focus on one line included in a larger statement, would interpret that to mean that Timothy could not possibly have the ability to relate or sympathize with the shoe shiners or the computer techs of America because he has never experienced the life of a low paid kiss-ass recently disciplined government worker.

Lord Jim wrote:You see a "clarification" I see an additional statement...

No, you see two separate statements; I see one.

I know we're never going to agree on this, but the clear (to me)intent of the statement as a whole is: "His wife has actually never [...] really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future."

If you're bound and determined to take something in her statement out of context, how about this: "With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Romney

Nuff said, the statement ; "she's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future." is proven.

She's a pampered woman who has lived a life of affluence.

She's a pampered woman who has lived a life of affluence.

So's Hillary Clinton then.

Rosen is a strategist and knows better than to make a stupid mistake like this.

The qualification of the statement should not have been in the 1st sentence of the second paragraph.

The qualification should have been in the same sentence if not before.

Sound Bites no sympathy here...

Except Hillary Clinton has worked.

What in the hell does this have to with Hillary Clinton?

Oh I see. Their names are similar.

Very astute observation.

Really adds a lot of insight to the conversation.

It seems obvious to me at this point that we're just going to keep talking past each other because we don't proceed from the same premise about the nature of the context.

I don't a remark that "seems" stupid if taken "out of context".....

I see a statement that is stupid, fully recognizing "the context" because "the context" I see is Rosen ticking of a list of criticisms about Ann Romney one of which is arguable:

"His wife has actually never [...] really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing"

And another which is stupid, insulting and false:

"Ann Romney never worked a day in her life."

Accusations about never having had to face the the kind of "economic issues" that ordinary people face have been made against Mitt many times; but nobody has ever accused him of "never having worked a day in his life".

It wouldn't occur to anyone to make that accusation, because Mitt Romney has spent years working in paid capacities in professional office environments.

But Ann hasn't...

That's the difference.

These are clearly two different accusations.

Lord Jim wrote:It seems obvious to me at this point that we're just going to keep talking past each other because we don't proceed from the same premise about the nature of the context.

Exactly.

But since more of us agree with me than agree with you, that proves you are wrong...

While I fully understood the point that Hilary Rosen was making, I was shocked by the way she brought Ann Romney into her remarks. It was completely unnecessary, and to call it inartful phrasing would be exceedingly generous. For someone who is supposedly a "communications consultant" and a political insider, it was a stupid, gratuitous and tone-deaf comment. Although economic hardship is not among them, Ann Romney has certainly had her share of struggles in her life, and any "strategist" with a lick of sense should know to steer well clear of anything that could in any way be construed as a personal attack on her, regardless of the subject matter. At this point in the election cycle, I doubt there is anyone who doesn't know the Romneys are incredibly wealthy and not exactly in tune with the economic concerns of the working class; Mitt has done a stellar job of making that clear all by himself. No one needs Hilary Rosen stepping all over herself to say the same thing.

ETA:

As for Allen West, he is another in a string of Tea Party embarrassments for the GOP. "Plantation Republican" indeed.