Romney and the binder blunder – Yahoo! News

Romney and the binder blunder – Yahoo! News.

My reply to the binder blunder article on Oct 18, 2012

Let me see if I have this straight. Obama with the help of Crowley make a mistake (or lie) about what Obama said about the attack on Benghazi. Crowley later retracts her statement that she had no right to make in the first place and vindicates Romney. For those who don’t know- Obama did NOT call the attack on the Benghazi Consulate a terrorist attack. You can find his exact words in the remarks at the .gov website. He went to the UN and blamed the attack on a film- Susan Rice blamed it on a film, Hilary Clinton blamed it on a file— but this article wants to hang Romney in effigy for talking about binders? Incredible. That’s the best you got??

“Romney said half-a-million manufacturing jobs had been lost in the last four years. “One of the reasons … is that people think it’s more attractive, in some cases, to go offshore than to stay here. We have made it less attractive for enterprises to stay here than to go offshore from time to time.” I knew exactly what he meant– as anyone in business management would. The excessive regulations and taxes make it far less “attractive” to try to make a profit in this country, so many companies go elsewhere where they can operate at a profit.

As for using the word “attractive” – what’s the problem? Attractive means to attract. The word itself is neutral in terms of people, things, or business ventures. If this writer is trying to find fault with his syntax, why not just say- his syntax is different than most women. I might buy that, but I wouldn’t fault him for it, because as a writer, I use a variety of syntax for the characters I create. My natural everyday syntax might be different from the writer of this article. It probably is. That difference does not make me smarter or less smart, it just makes me different. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

As for women voting for Romney, some will. I will. Most women understand their needs are not totally centered around their vagina and contraceptive devices. They need jobs. Some need to feed their children. They need a vision for a future as surely as a male. But it’s OK to tell women not to vote for Romney because somehow his syntax doesn’t mesh with theirs. If this is what liberal progressives see as the major issues of our time, something is horribly wrong.

We are indeed on the edge of a fiscal cliff. The debates should have covered this in the 2nd debate that included domestic and foreign policy, but as you know Crowley culled the questions and answers. But you don’t need a debate. You need to look around at what is happening in Europe with several nations going bankrupt. You could look at the spending and borrowing the US is doing and know this cannot be sustained. Most of us live on a budget. We know we cannot keep spending when our funds run out. The government apparently does not.

Romney and Ryan understand our economy. 670 economists have endorsed them. The group includes 6 Nobel laureates.

Vote for whomever you want, certainly. But vote as mature people who understand what is at stake. It is not about Romney’s syntax. It is about the fiscal sanity of our nation and avoiding the disaster that looms ahead.

Women, you are much more than a vagina that the Democrats want the government to subsidize in order to get your vote.

Full disclosure: I am a conservative. I do not work for the Romney organization. Therefore, if Ms. Hefferman finds fault with my syntax, I will not be offended in the least.

BTW, we labeled the president #EmptyBinder.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s