• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Madeleine Albright why any woman would want to vote for Mitt

flounder

Well-known member
Madeleine Albright: 'I Can't Understand Why Any Woman Would Want To Vote For Mitt Romney'


Posted: 09/03/2012 6:42 pm Updated: 09/04/2012 8:52 am

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- There's been no shortage of musing over Mitt Romney's failure to win over female voters. The gender gap is pronounced, and with the efforts of the president's political team, growing wider. Romney has been criticized for his failure to speak out in support of equal pay for equal work, he's been tied to some of his party's more hardline positions on abortion, and has been caricatured as a relic of a bygone era in which women put career ambitions aside.

But for all the talk of Romney's trouble among women voters, no Democrat has put it in the terms that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright did in an interview with The Huffington Post on Monday.

"I'm not sure I'm going to state this exactly right," she said, sitting amidst a sea of convention-related activity and daytime wine drinkers in the Westin hotel lobby in downtown Charlotte. "But I think there are some who believe they are actually protecting women, you know, and that it is better for women to be taken care of. I think women want to take care of themselves, and I think having a voice in how that is done is very important. And frankly, I don’t understand -- I mean, I'm obviously a card-carrying Democrat -- but I can't understand why any woman would want to vote for Mitt Romney, except maybe Mrs. Romney."

Albright then revised her pool of rationally thinking female Romney supporters to include his five daughters-in-law, an obvious but hardly generous expansion. Even with the rhetorical flair, however, Albright's comments reflect a genuine disturbance that many Democrats -- women and men -- feel about the tone of the discussion of women's issues during the course of the campaign.

The former secretary of State, who has been an outspoken advocate for women in the workplace, said she found the assertion by Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) that a rape victim can shut down her body to avoid pregnancy to be "one of the more outrageous" comments she's witnessed in her 75 years.

"It was appalling and disgusting," she said. "But if I may say so, the things that he said in one form or another are in the Republican platform. So [while Republicans are] saying he is a nutcase and they have to move away from him, they did not move away from their platform."

Her reference was to language in the GOP platform that outlaws abortion even in cases of rape or incest. It's a policy that Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has embraced throughout his career, before distancing himself in the wake of Akin's remarks. Romney has always supported such exceptions. Even so, Albright argued, he had "become captive to a party that does in fact think that women should not have voices."

This is about as harsh an indictment as has been leveled by a major Democratic figure at the Republican Party and its nominee. And in conjuring up images of women being pushed into figurative (if not literal) silence, Albright invited some obvious pushback. The current state of the economy hasn't exactly allowed women to warm up their vocal cords.

"I’m guessing the millions of American women unemployed, underemployed or constantly worrying about filling the gas tank or put food on the table can think of a few reasons to make sure Barack Obama isn't our president for another four years," said Kirsten Kukowski, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

Aware of the gender gap, Romney's campaign gave several Republican women primetime speaking roles at his party's recently completed convention, including his wife, Ann, who spoke about the trials that came with their marriage and raising five kids, in addition to declaring in one of the conventions more indelible moments, "I love you, women."

It will, in all likelihood, take a bit more than a few speeches in support of Romney to make up the ground among women voters. A TIME/CNN poll of likely voters found Obama beating Romney by 12 and 10 points among women in Florida and North Carolina, respectively.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/madeleine-albright-mitt-romney_n_1852789.html
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Terry...I want PROOF that Madeline Albright is a woman. Have the Olympic folks do their DNA testing or whatever they have to do. Before she can speak for women, she has to prove herself one first.

Good Gawd but that "woman", err, person, ahhh, THING is fugly! :shock:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
I don't care if she is a man or woman. A little off point but she sure is ugly. But the reason you can't believe a thing she says is she is NUTS, just downright crazy.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
"But I think there are some who believe they are actually protecting women, you know, and that it is better for women to be taken care of. I think women want to take care of themselves, and I think having a voice in how that is done is very important. And frankly, I don’t understand -- I mean, I'm obviously a card-carrying Democrat -- but I can't understand why any woman would want to vote for Mitt Romney, except maybe Mrs. Romney."



Looks like "Julia" didn't go over too well with the focus groups. :lol:


Obama’s “The Life Of Julia:” Poster Child For Cradle To Grave Socialism

http://www.theconservativereview.com/2012/05/07/obamas-the-life-of-julia-poster-child-for-cradle-to-grave-socialist-big-government-2/
 

Mike

Well-known member
She's certainly a phoney......................

Madeleine Albright, alias Maria Jana Korbel, born a Jew, baptized a Catholic, now an Episcopalian, appointed to the Secretary of State post by a godless draft-evading President, is now in charge of our foreign policy.

If Albright was so eager to dump her Czech roots and her Jewishness for money and power, how can we be sure that this Secretary of State won't do the same with the American national interests? Or perhaps was that, in fact, the whole point and the main criterion for selecting her for the top foreign policy post?

Maybe our ruling elites, the establishment plutocrats who decide whom to send to Washington, only pick the people like Clinton or Albright who "believe in nothing" except in money and power. Maybe only unscrupulous candidates who are willing to sell out principles and protect their sponsors', rather than our national, interests are "good enough to serve our country" - another "Da Bull" establishment line .

As we wrote in the Truth in Media Bulletin 96-08, 8/29/96, having people like that "in charge of the U.S. national security is like hiring a fox to guard a chicken coop. With the American people inside."
 
Top