Recall that North Carolina teacher, now suspended without pay, who upbraided a student for daring to, as she put it, “disrespect” the President of the United States in her classroom.  She had told her class that it was “criminal to slander a president”:

“Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush?” she says of former President Bush. “Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?”

Oh, really, where does it say that in the Constitution?

Nobody, points out blogger Rhymes with Right, himself a teacher,

. . . was arrested for saying bad things about George W. Bush. In fact those who did so became cultural heroes — don’t you remember that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and that Cindy Sheehan was treated as some sort of demigod by those opposed to Bush and his policies?

Yes, even in the dark days when that supposed fascist reigned in Washington, people remained free to criticize the president and were often celebrated for doing so.

I wonder how many of those same people will criticize the North Carolina teacher for criticizing a student who engaged, to borrow an expression they might like, in “the highest form of patriotism.”

Obama gets Reagan wrong on infrastructure

RELATED: No, Mr. President, Ronald Reagan didn’t campaign on raising taxes

No, Time Magazine, Obama does not “Heart” Reagan*

Barack Obama just can’t seem to get Ronald Reagan right.

In the past year, we’ve heard Democrats, including the president himself, fault Republicans in the 112th Congress for, attempting with their budgets to starve the poor and deprive others of needed social services, as if they insist the less fortunate alone and isolated in a cruel world and oppose all notions of charity and compassion in general and government assistance in particular.

But, as conservative bloggers and pundits (including yours truly) have noted, even the Ryan budget maintains federal domestic spending at or above (mostly above) levels experienced in the Clinton era.

John Hinderaker reminds us of the dishonest Democratic demagoguery in other arena, that of environmental protection, where some Democrats contend Republicans have become far more radical, departing from the traditions of past Republican presidents.  John reminds us that it’s not Republicans who have changed, but the Democrats who have become more radical than they once were:

But is it Republicans who have changed on the environment, or Democrats? What Republicans are advocating repeal of the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act? None. What Republicans do object to is the extremism embodied in Barack Obama’s EPA, a senior official of which says that the agency’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” oil and gas companies.

It’s important to bear in mind that even as Republican candidates and elected officials today talk about scaling back federal regulations and cutting government spending, they’re only talking about repealing legislation passed in the Obama and George W. Bush eras and keeping in place (often to the chagrin of the libertarian-minded among us) legislation enacted before the end of the last century or reducing spending to levels seen under Clinton, Nixon or Reagan.

Maybe it’s that because at least starting in college, we have to confront the biases of our professors, listening to, engaging with and responding to their arguments that we develop the appreciation of opposing arguments.

Yesterday, Bruce alerted me to a poll (which I had also noticed) showing how (compared to Democrats) broad-minded Republicans are:

Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”

The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

. . . .

Pew’s new study echoes the results of many other reports and studies that show GOP supporters are better educated, more empathetic and more open to criticism than Democrats.

Emphasis added.  In addition, more than twice as many liberals as conservatives “deleted friends from their social networks after disagreeing with their politics.”

And yet the perception persists that conservatives are intolerant troglodytes, lacking the understanding of their arguments of their ideological adversaries or unwilling to associate with those holding views different from their own.  Wonder why that is.

The media are all abuzz about Mitt Romney’s likability ratings, perhaps because it’s one of the few issues where polls, even those skewed to favor Democrats, show him struggling to hold his own against the president.  As is often the case, Ed Morrissey puts this story in its proper context, finding that in one of the skewed surveys, nearly 40% of the respondents have yet to form an opinion about the former Bay State governor:

More than a third of respondents (37%) don’t know enough about Romney to form an opinion of him, while only 13% say that about Obama. (Really?  After more than three years as President?)  That is why having a dead heat at this stage of the race is such bad news for Team Obama, along with a re-elect number in the mid-40s.  Romney has much more room to improve his standing than Obama does, and that’s why Team Obama has been so desperate to attack Romney on a personal basis.

Emphasis added.  As non-affiliated voters start to focus on the presidential election, the Obama team (along with their allies in the legacy media) are doing their utmost to define Obama’s likely successor.

They’ll be fighting against the tendency of the American people to give a party’s presidential nominee a fair hearing once his party starts to coalesce around his campaign.  Indeed, one poll which weighted Democrats disproportionally to recent voting patterns, released this past Tuesday “indicates that Romney’s popularity is starting to rebound now that the divisiveness of the primaries appears to be all but over“:

Forty-four percent of people questioned in the survey say they have a favorable view of the former Massachusetts governor, up 10 points from February, during some of the most heated moments of the GOP primaries and caucuses. Forty-three percent say they have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, down 11 points from February. Thirteen percent are unsure.

No wonder Joe Biden is trying to “Bork” Mitt Romney; he and his fellow partisans want to prevent those thirteen percent from gaining a favorable opinion of the presumptive Republican nominee while solidifying the unfavorable view of the forty-three percent.

A nonincumbent’s unfavorability ratings are not set in stone.  Indeed, the New York Times‘s Nate Silver reminds us that once past general elections have gotten “under way, such as in 1988 and 1992“, there “have been clear reversals in favorability ratings”. (more…)

On Monday, when doing cardio at the gym, I looked up to catch President Obama’s speech at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.  In the eighteen minutes that I watched the speech (until CNN cut away), I heard little but attacks on Republican policies, with frequent references to the middle class.

In a report on the speech (via Instapundit), The Washington Times‘s Dave Boyer reported that

Pausing between $10,000-a-plate fundraisers for his re-election campaign, President Obama called on Congress in a highly partisan speech Tuesday to approve a tax increase on the wealthy to pay for programs for the middle class.

This “highly partisan speech” was an official speech, allowing the president to bill taxpayers for the fundraising trip to the Sunshine State, packing the 30-minute address, as he did, “in the midst of three fundraisers in the battleground state, prompting complaints by Republicans that Mr. Obama was fleecing taxpayers for campaign travel.”

In the speech, billed by the White House, as remarks on the economy, the president offered no new policies to strengthen the anemic recovery, choosing instead to fault Republicans for gutting what he calls “investments” (his terms for government grants):

They proposed a budget that showers the wealthiest Americans with even more tax cuts, and then pays for these tax cuts by gutting investments in education and medical research and clean energy, in health care.

. . . .

Now, thousands of medical research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS would be eliminated.  Tens of thousands of researchers and students and teachers could lose their jobs.  Our investments in clean energy that are making us less dependent on imported oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.

Note the conditional of the president’s attacks.  People could lose their jobs.  Investments in “clean” energy?  Has he been paying attention to the number of such companies which have gone belly up (despite receiving federal grants and loan guarantees)? (more…)

Just caught this on Yahoo! headlines:

Wonder how often Yahoo offers headline which feature claims Republicans make that have a basis in political and economic reality such as:  ”Romney:  Obama policies cause women to suffer disproportionate share of job losses.”*  You could remove the “Romney” from the headline and it would far more accurate than the above headline if Obama were removed.

Take off “Obama” from and, well, it’s just a silly statement with no basis in reality whatsoever.  The Gipper would never support the Buffett rule (see below).

In the linked article, Oliver Knox quotes the president’s remarks, but also reports that “Reagan also championed the very same ‘trickle-down’ economics that Obama has roundly denounced—the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to investment that generates growth and thereby jobs.”  Yet, only those critical of Reagan’s economic policies use the expression “trickle-down” to describe them.  And the Gipper favored cutting taxes across the board, not just on the “wealthy.”

Citing the actual speech where the Gipper discussed “problems with the tax code“,  an address which included  an “anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary”, Philip Klein reminds us that

. . . Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.

* (more…)

So claims blogress diva Ann Althouse in her post on one of the Democrat’s many criticisms of Republicans for their Ryan budget:

Obama mocked Romney this way: “He said that he’s ‘very supportive’ of this new budget, and he even called it ‘marvelous’ — which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget.” Comic pause. “It’s a word you don’t often hear generally.”

. . . .

My first association, on hearing one man mock another for saying “marvelous,” was: Gay. It’s an I’m-more-manly move. I heard a smidgeon of homophobia. Perhaps I heard it because, a few days ago, on winning the Wisconsin primary, Romney introduced Ryan, saying: “Congressman Ryan, he’s a great leader, wonderful speaker, but he’s not gonna take Ann’s place.” (Ann being, of course, Mitt’s wife.) At the time, I quipped: “Combatting the ‘bromance’ rumors!”

. . . .

But Romney uttered “marvelous,” the adjective. He was talking about Paul Ryan’s budget, and Obama snickered. Am I wrong to hear a tone of homophobia? (more…)

Although one recent poll showed that Mitt Romney was not doing as well with women as he was with men, Obama’s internal polls must show that his support among women is quite soft.  And his team is doing everything it can to play to women’s fears about the horrible, no good and very bad things that might happen if the Republicans and their diabolical social conservative henchmen came to power next January.

Over at the Daily Caller (via Instapundit), Jeff Poor reports on how Charles Krauthammer took apart the White House claim that its upcoming “National Women’s Issues Conference” is anything but a political stunt; that sage pundit called “White House spokesman Jay Carney’s response to a question about conference posed by Fox News Channel’s White House correspondent, Ed Henry, . . .’shameless and over-the-top’”:

“According to Jay Carney, it has nothing at all to do with the election,” Krauthammer said. “They actually think they can say that and do it with a straight face and get away with it. I mean, all the administrations use taxpayer money to promote themselves in an election year. But this is pretty shameless and over-the-top.”

He said that this conference stemmed from the recent contraception debate that was given birth by the media.

“Notice how when the president said, ‘This is about a wide range of issues. It isn’t just about’ — and what’s the one thing he named immediately? Contraception. Of course it is about contraception,” Krauthammer said. “It’s because of the way it was handled and the media covered it — it became all of a sudden a war on the women, which is a complete invention.”

Krauthammer later points out how the media have collaborated in inventing this war on women.  Just read the whole thing to see what it means.

Perhaps now we should be grateful for George Stephanopolous’s question about contraception during the WMUR debate back in January.  The likely Republican nominee didn’t take the former Clinton aide’s bait and offered a response which should assure all but the most politicized women that he has no intention to make an issue of contraception.  Instead of his words becoming a sound byte for the Democratic offense against the GOP; they should instead serve as defense against an outrageous and dishonest claims that Republicans have declared war on women.

Krauthammer is right.  It is shameless how politicized this administration has become.

UPDATE (from Bruce):  Glenn Reynolds reports about another front in Obama’s #WarOnWomen:

“Obama played 23 rounds of golf between January and October of 2009 before inviting a single woman to his foursome, the New York Times reported. This was emblematic of broader concerns over the president’s preference for the company and advice of men.”

Earlier today, Jim Hoft linked yet another video showing White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodging — and not directly answering — a reporter’s question.  Carney does this because he know he can get away with it.  His former colleagues and friends in the legacy media just won’t hold his feet to the fire.

Watch again the video I posted yesterday:

Simply put, he doesn’t answer Brett Baier’s question about the failure of the Democratic Senate to pass a budget, but instead resorting to cheap, dishonest and partisan attacks on Republicans.  Had a Republican in his position attempted this, he would earn the opprobrium of the White House press corps.  But, Carney knows he can get away with this because when it comes to covering Obama, this corps has been remarkably complacent, cooperating with rather than questioning such communicators.

And still the president lectures them: (more…)

“Occasionally,” writes Tina Korbe, a woman who feels Howard Dean’s party patronizes those of her sex

. . . Democrats give me the distinct impression that their positions on, say, gay marriage or immigration are based more on the desire to win votes than cohesive principles. It’s suspicious, for example, that the president’s official position is against gay marriage but “evolving.” It’s almost as though he’s just waiting for an overwhelming majority of Americans to be in favor of gay marriage before he switches his position. Reducing gays, Muslims, Latinos, immigrants and women to their concerns over gay-specific, Muslim-specific, Latino-specific, immigrant-specific and women-specific positions reduces them to something less than a whole, entire, complex person. But no person is reducible to the tiniest sliver of himself — his sexuality, his religion, his ethnicity, his immigrant status, his gender. We all care — broadly — about human flourishing. That’s what Republicans want — a prosperous, flourishing, fully human society.

She says this in response to former chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean who, in his latest rant, accused the GOP of engaging in “Gay-bashing, Muslim-bashing, Latino-bashing, immigrant-bashing, women-bashing every day”. Sounds like he got his information from the left-wing blogs which supported his 2004 bid for the White Rather rather than from actual interaction with actual Republicans.

Korbe acknowledges she “cannot speak for gays, Muslims, Latinos or immigrants”, but she contends that as a woman, she has

. . . found the Democratic Party’s approach to my vote far less loving and far more insulting than the Republican Party’s approach to that vote. While Democrats reduce me to nothing more than my sexuality and assume that I cannot even pay for my own birth control, Republicans appeal to me as a whole person, to my ability to take personal responsibility for myself, to work hard, to reap the benefits of my labors and to voluntarily share those benefits with whose who truly aren’t able to be responsible for themselves.

Well, Tina, you speak for me.  And, I would dare say, for a good number of our blog readers.   (more…)

Well, you can’t accuse Barack Obama of originality.  Today, the incumbent President of the United States trotted out that old Democratic talking point that Ronald Reagan “could not get through a Republican primary today.”

The Democrat uses that silly notion as he lambastes his partisan rivals for their supposed unwillingness to compromise:

These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise.

. . . .

Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.

If the newspaper editors (with whom he conducted the interview) did their homework, they would find that the party unwilling to brook any compromise sits in the White House, with the president, for example, having walked away from a a debt agreement last summer where Republicans has agreed to an $800 billion increase in “revenue.”

Oh yea, and Obama might want to remember that Reagan later regretted signing on the 1982 budget deal as the Democrats got their tax cuts, but the spending cuts never materialized.  Seems this guy just can’t get his facts straight about his predecessors.

Not just that, Reagan never ran for president promising to raise taxes.  Quite the contrary, in fact; in the 1984 campaign, he used his Democratic opponent’s support for such hikes against him. (more…)

It does seem you can count on the New York Times editorial page to repeat the talking points of the Obama administration.  And now apparently, their star columnist has joined the fray.  According to Jeff Poor in the Daily Caller, Tom Friedman is now calling the Republican Party “a radical party”:

I think it is the fact that in my view the Republican Party is no longer a conservative party. It’s become a radical party on a lot of these key issues.

(Via Hot Air headlines.) Well, Tom, it is a fact that that is your view.  Problem is though that most Americans don’t agree with you.  Republicans now have a modest lead over Democrats in the RealClearPolitics average of the generic congressional ballot.

And it’s not just that poll.  As John Hinderaker reports, Rasmussen’s “latest ‘voters trust’ survey” shows Americans preferring Republicans to Democrats on 6 of 10 key issues, including the economy (“far and away the most important thing on voters’ minds this election“) where the supposedly radical party leads the president’s party by 11 points (49-38).  On national security the GOP has a 9-point edge (48-39).  On taxes, it’s a 6-point edge.

That’s one point higher than the Democrats’ largest margin — on education where voters trust them by a 44-39 margin.  Wonder if the margin would favor the Republicans if the producers of Waiting for Superman had addressed the ties between the teachers’ unions and the Democratic Party.

Seems Mr. Friedman is the voice of the liberal mindset (much heralded among those who share his opinions) rather than a man attuned to the realities of American politics.

SORT OF RELATED:  And this prominent New Yorker, the voice of a community entirely different from Mr. Friedman’s, has been calling the president’s policies “radical.”  (Via Gateway Pundit.)

When President Obama talks about the economy, it seems he derives his information not from historical facts, but instead from Keynesian theory.  At a campaign fundraiser in Maine, the politician once billed as post-partisan accused his partisan rivals of “madness”:

“We won’t win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we cling to this same old, worn-out, tired ‘You’re on your own’ economics that the other side is peddling,” Obama said.

“It was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn’t work then. It was tried in the last decade. It didn’t work,” he said. “You know, the idea you would keep on doing the same thing over and over again, even though it’s been proven not to work. That’s a sign of madness.”

Well, the economics that the incumbent derides as “You’re on your own” created more jobs in September 1983 than were created in the past five months, among the best months for job creation since Mr. Obama took office.

In the decade** before the Great Depression, under the policies of Republicans Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the United States enjoyed the “Roaring Twenties,” an era of “sustained economic prosperity.“  It was only when Coolidge’s successor, Herbert Hoover, increased federal spending and ramped up government regulation, that the economy began to collapse, leading to the Great Depression.

Under Hoover and his successor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, federal officials tried various forms of state meddling over and over again, yet none of those policies proved to work.  Throughout the 1930s, unemployment remained high.  By this president’s logic, wouldn’t it be a sign of madness to adopt economic policies similar to Mr. Roosevelt’s?  Or Mr. Hoover’s?

(H/t The Gateway Pundit.)

* (more…)

In the New York Post today, John Podhoretz has a great piece which, in looking at some liberal commentators’ reaction to the Supreme Court arguments over Obamacare, considers the failure of all too many in the chattering classes to appreciate the merits of conservative arguments:

The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.

They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.

Read the whole thing, and as you do, ponder why all too many in the chattering classes so regularly dismiss the intelligence of conservatives and the merits of our arguments.

Via Powerline picks.

There comes a moment in the lives of most gay conservative when the outrage we feel at intolerant attitudes toward and mean-spirted reaction to our politics becomes amusement at the narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness of our left-of-center gay peers unable to understand the ideas of their ideological adversaries.  I receive reports on a near daily basis from gay Republican peers about Facebook “friends” “defriending” them for daring to disagree with their opinions of the president — or registering their own as Republicans.

Not to mention the nasty response we often hear when we offer opinions at odd with gay orthodoxy.  And sometimes we don’t even need identify ourselves as gay Republicans to experience the hatred some gay liberals feel for gay conservatives.  Just yesterday, I quipped that we “must always be suspicious of anyone who spends his life defining himself by what he is not — or making much of those he dislikes” in response to a liberal friend’s link to a blog post about an “ex-gay” video.

Shortly after my comment, a gay liberal chimed in, “self loathing gay men [Log Cabin?] are a bit strange!”  Another would offer (all caps in original, “REPUBLICAN –GAY = OXYMORON…OR IS IT JUST MORON? I FORGET.”

Do wonder why these guys hate so much.  And wonder as well if some of them have joined campaigns against H8, i.e., those opposing state recognition of same-sex marriage.

You look at these people, smile in amusement at their smallness, shake your head and feel sorry for them — for lacking the capacity to realize that someone can have different opinions from their own for sound reasons — and without harboring sinister motives.

Just caught this from David Axelrod:

Everyone should have stood up and said this was inappropriate as apparently many of Maher’s supporters now have said it was inappropriate.

I was kind of shocked, Anderson, when President Obama, all he had — all he had to say about the thing was, well, that isn’t language I would have used. What about the spirit of what was said? I thought that was a cowardly answer and it was a test of leadership and one that he failed.

. . . .

So I don’t excuse any of it. Now I will say this. There are very few entertainers who are as outspoken in attacking Republicans as Bill Maher does so regularly on his shown. I think one of the reasons why President Obama and others were so timid in speaking out is because Maher is the de facto spokesman for the Democratic Party, so to take him on would be to risk your own standing within the party’s left-wing base. And so that separates him from the others.

Oh, wait, sorry, I just substituted Maher for Rush, President Obama for Governor Romney and Democrat for Republican (with a few other minor changes to improve the flow).

Meanwhile, Axelrod still keeps making excuses for Maher who has yet to apologize for his “inappropriate” language–as Rush has done.  The president couldn’t even bring himself to criticize Maher as Romney criticized Rush, not even in allegedly anodyne language Axelrod called cowardly.

If Romney’s response were cowardly, then Obama’s was more so (by Axelrod’s standard).

Indeed, in his news conference, the Democrat dodged the question on double standards. He would have been wise, Athena writes, to discuss the coarsening of our discourse: (more…)

Recall that contraception kerfuffle came to the fore the Friday before the president released his FY 2013 budget. Even then, the White House numbers forecast deficits in 2018 higher than the “astounding” figure Bob Schieffer cited in 2008, leading the then-Democratic nominee to reiterate his pledge of a “net spending cut” and vowing, not “to go back to our profligate ways.”

Well, it seems that Miss Rosy Scenario crafted those bleak figures in the White House budget:

President Obama’s 2013 budget would add $3.5 trillion to annual deficits through 2022, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

It also would raise the deficit next year by $365 billion, according to the nonpartisan office.

The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.

No, wonder his team is trying to drag out the Democratic narrative of an Republican War on Women.  Only “32% of women say they will definitely vote for Obama in 2012“.  And since 36% of women plan to definitely vote against them, they need to try to sway the remaining 32%.  And demonizing Republicans is a lot easier than defending an irresponsible federal budget.

About 20 minutes ago, received an e-mail from an acquaintance, parroting a liberal talking point, telling me that extremists had taken over the GOP.  Not long after that, opened an e-mail providing evidence showing a much more tolerant party.

In the latter, Scott Schmidt reported that “the Republican Party of Los Angeles County and the California Republican Party” had endorsed West Hollywood small business owner Brad Torgan. . . .  Torgan is only one of seventeen non-incumbent candidates for the State Assembly to receive the State Party’s nod before the June 5, 2012 election.  The endorsement will be published alongside the Candidate’s name on the sample ballot sent to voters before the election.”

Oh, and Brad Torgan is gay.

And he supports the unifying small government principles which bring together most Republicans, heralding the endorsement with these word, “I will fight for limited government, fundamental freedoms and cleaning up Sacramento not because those are Republican values, but because they are what the people of the fiftieth district, and the State of California, are asking for.”

Sounds like the kind of guy I can support.  And for whom I will most definitely be voting.  (This is my district after all.)

If a story on conservatives or Republicans appears in the New York Times, you must first verify it with a more reliable source before you can determine its accuracy.  No wonder a blogress who voted for Obama in 2008 had a bit of fun with a Times article about centrist women’s supposed disenchantment with the GOP.

The old gray lady quoted some woman claiming to have voted for McCain the year Ann Althouse voted for Obama who was so offended by how busy Republicans were telling us how we should act in our bedrooms, that it appears writer Susan Saulny had to whip out the smelling salts to prevent her from fainting.  This supposed McCain supporter getting her news about the GOP not from the candidates themselves, but from the candidates as filtered through such sources as the Times or CNN.

As Althouse reminds us, it’s not the Republicans who started the “ridiculous talk” about contraception:

Of course, Democrats started the conversation, but it was a good conversation to start if the goal was to get some Republicans to say some things that could be used against them. Fortunately, Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate who is going to be the nominee, had the sense not to say much. He was “tepid.” Good! We don’t want the government in our bedroom, so we don’t need a passionate President. Let him stay in his office and coolly and calmly do his job, which shouldn’t have anything to do with sex. He’s not our boyfriend.

Exactly.  Read the whole thing.  Althouse sounds skeptical (about the political affiliation of the women quoted).  And she’s right to be; the Times article does little more than repeat a Democratic talking point.

(If “some” of these women were, as Miss Saulny claimed, “critical of Mr. Romney’s tepid response,” wonder how they feel about Mr. Obama’s non-response to the misogynistic language used by a man who gave $1 million to his Super PAC.)

OH, AND, ONE MORE THING:   (more…)