America, Don’t Be Distracted!

Posted on | October 17, 2012 | 18 Comments

The next vice president of the United States wants Americans to keep focused on the important economic issues confronting our nation. So I felt kinda guilty when I was distracted by the smiling redhead standing behind Paul Ryan during his speech in Ohio:

“And look at where we are right now: 23 million Americans struggling to find work. You know, we had a discussion about how women are faring in this economy last night. Five-and-a-half million women are still struggling for work in this economy. A half-million women more are unemployed today than when President Obama was sworn in. Twenty-six million women are trapped in poverty today. That’s the highest rate in 17 years. We need to get people back to work. We need to get this economy turned around. The American idea is there. It hasn’t gone away. But we have the wrong people and the wrong policies in place, and if we clear the way and go forward with the proactive, pro-growth solutions in the agenda that Mitt Romney is talking about, we will get people back to work. We will get people out of poverty, back in the middle class, we’ll get back onto reaching their vision of the American dream.”
— Paul Ryan, Berea, Ohio, Oct. 17, 2012

You know Democrats must be discouraged: Republicans have the best economic policies and the pretty redheads? Winning!

Category: Economics, Election 2012, Ohio, Paul Ryan

Comments

18 Responses to “America, Don’t Be Distracted!”

Finrod Felagund
October 17th, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

Speaking of winning, the Gallup likely voter poll today:

Romney 51, Obama 45.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
October 17th, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

Turns out Barack Obama is not so good on equal pay for equal work for women. A bit of post debate fact checking not panning out for Obama.
EsausMessage
October 17th, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

Most women smile when they see Ryan from that angle.
LN_Smithee
October 17th, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

I’ve been in the Twitter Gulag for about 15 hours now. I’m wondering which of the comments I made was the final straw for a prog who marked me as spam, and I think it may have been when I pointed out that the Ledbetter case was not about “equal pay,” it was about the expiration of the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. Then, I followed up by pointing out that liberal women don’t care about such issues unless the person targeted is pro-life. When pro-choice politicians aren’t good on the issue, it doesn’t matter; the feminists put on their “presidential kneepads.” I ended with the hashtag #NinaBurleigh, she being the former Time reporter who not only said she wasn’t bothered by Clinton getting oral sex from interns as long as he kept abortion legal and “the theocracy off our backs,” but that women ought to be “lining up with their Presidential kneepads” in appreciation.

BTW, any help getting me out of Twitter Gulag would be appreciated.
deucegeary
October 17th, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

I was hoping for Christina Hendricks!
bet0001970
October 17th, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

I am seriously beginning to think that the ONLY reason you’re a Republican is because of the girls. And this site and your job and everything else is all just an elaborate cover for the real game: Chick-Spotting.
Wombat_socho
October 17th, 2012 @ 6:20 pm

We can neither confirm nor deny that this is the case.
Becca Lower
October 17th, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

In order for continued study on this theory, a large money transfer into the freaking tip jar, labeled for the “Shoe Leather Fund”, is highly recommended.
Texas or Busted
October 17th, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

Love the pro-ginger love. I am a sucker for them, especially the very pretty ones. I need to get her number. Justsayin.
Becca Lower
October 17th, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

Handle?
Theories A-Swirlin’… « Lower The Boom
October 17th, 2012 @ 8:05 pm

[…] there an ulterior motive for R. Stacy McCain’s entire […]
bet0001970
October 17th, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

Unfortunately, my extra funds are currently tied up supporting certain unnamed bloggers who may or may not be engaged in litigation at this moment with certain unnamed douchebags. It’s highly complicated. However seeing as a certain “Chick-Spotter” may or may not be involved in said circumstances tied to possible litigation against aforementioned douchebaggery, I may be able to assist in the research of my theory on such matters in the next month.
Becca Lower
October 17th, 2012 @ 8:46 pm

Understood.

I was so inspired by your comment, I wrote a blog about it. 😉 http://lowertheboom.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/theories-a-swirlin/
Mike son of John
October 17th, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

http://conservativegulag.com/open-day-101712/#comments
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2012 @ 8:59 pm

@LNSmithee
Bob Belvedere
October 17th, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

Done: http://twitter.com/BobBelvedere/statuses/258734084744962049
bet0001970
October 17th, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

I’m betting on my theory. 😉
Adjoran
October 18th, 2012 @ 12:56 am

Sometimes to get the answers you have to ask the right questions. If Ambassador Stevens’ mission in Benghazi was to arrange a deal for the return of American weaponry, that wouldn’t be a function of the State Department, it would be a project of Defense with State assisting on the ground.

IOW, the specific mission wasn’t one of Hillary’s projects, it came from higher up or laterally from Panetta, or Clapper, or perhaps Petraeaus. Cross-jurisdictional projects like that usually get a mandate from above.

Stevens may have been murdered by the very people he was supposed to strike a deal with in Benghazi. And it might have been a White House mandate.

No wonder they want everything slowed down, delayed, and distracted.