(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

One thing I just noticed. You used *one* example of 'imprecise' language as the case study for the misuse of the SMRH plank.

I think that any 'misuse' goes *well* beyond 'imprecise' language. A case in point is the TPM article re: Moore linked the other day. That headline of (paraphrase here) 'leading the charge against removal of segregationist language' has nothing to do with a use of imprecise language by the target. Nothing whatsoever.

And to be honest, I would say it is that type of SMRH plank that is far more common.

And, in all honesty, the same may be said of much of the Republican 'plank' of equating many policies to rank socialism (albeit there may be a common link vis a vis collectivism.) But again, the statements of 'Obama is nothing but a socialist (communist)(pinko)' typically have no basis at all in 'imprecise language.'