Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year. If he hadn’t given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.
It is time for Mitt Romney to get in touch with his inner rich guy.
Yes, you just read that. Someone at the National Review just suggested that the President of the United States needs to get a "cardigan sweater" and some "fallopian tubes" because he's a big wussy man who only had daughters. Oh, the shame, the shame!! Now, I know that a lot of Republicans don't really believe in evolution, but this article doesn't do much to convince me that the ones that do actually understand it, or have evolved much themselves. It just goes on and on like this and it's one of the most bizarre, misogynist things I've ever read:
You can pretty much envision the writer drool as he fantasizes about Mitt Romney and his money and his male-childbearing virility. This article honestly makes me so sad, that in 2012, this is how we talk about presidential candidates, and women, and the electorate, and that the Republican party has fallen so far and has become such an intellectual black hole.
In addition to Barack Obama, in the last 60 years: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman only had daughters. Looks like candidates with daughters win.
This article honestly makes me so sad, that in 2012, this is how we talk about presidential candidates, and women, and the electorate, and that the Republican party has fallen so far and has become such an intellectual black hole.
Hey now, I'm plenty sure that Williamson fellow was thinking long and hard about the Mittster as he typed that article with one hand.
While there may be a lot of women who think Romney is a stud because he sires sons, I am also pretty sure few of those gals will vote. All the female voters I know don't use stuff like this as a reason to vote for a candidate, but I could be wrong, as I'm not 22 any more.
I do know young married guys want sons, but that all changes when a baby girl shows up. Daughters are precious to Daddies, and when my first was a girl, I was completely happy with her. 40 years later, I'm even happier, as she's my only daughter, and even though she's very independent, she's still a Daddy's girl. And I'm mighty proud to be her father. Men are like that.
I would say that data refutes this theory. Obama is polling way better with women voters than Romney is. I'm pretty sure most women care about issues, rather than how many sons Romney has. That's just a dumb thing to ponder.
A black female cook at work thinks that Obama is a studmuffin but Scott Brown is not. Personally I don't find either Obama or Romney attractive enough to want to date. Scott Brown is the most attractive of the three, but honestly I would not go to dinner with any of them.
And actually, I've said for decades that I would never want to be a politician's wife. And that I'd divorce a husband that suddenly wanted to jump into politics. Smiling and hosting tea parties and social events is just not my thing.
BTW I would never vote for a candidate based on their looks....
Romney does have good hair and if Molly Ivins' theory (the guy with the better hair, wins) is valid, he has a chance. HOWEVER, Mitt's good hair (love how when he Just-for-Mens his hair, he leaves his temples grey) is negated by Ryan's creepy Eddie Munster do. Also, Eddie Munster has a lot more wrinkles than Mitt the Twit which leads one to surmise Mitt the Twit is nipped and tucked, NOT a turn on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
