So, according to a certain DNC advisor (Hilary Rosen), a mother of 5 children has "never worked a day in her life"... because raising children is easy?
Starting at 0:50 the tirade begins...
0vrE7DG1OWc

I wonder how many children Rosen has?
I can barely handle 1 dog, much less 5 young children... I guess she's super lazy though.

Is this not a form of bigotry? When you attack housewives? It isn't like this housewife has no kids and doesn't do volunteer work, etc... I find it, at a minimum, in bad taste.

"never worked a day in her life" is complete and utter bollocks.

And as people here prove on a daily basis, you don't have to be a mother of 5 to be clueless about economy.

Seems reasonable in the context. The context being 'the kinds of economics issues the majority of women in [the USA] are facing' such as 'How do we feed our kids' and 'how do we send [our kids] to school'. In that context, the relevant understanding of 'working' is not as the antonym of 'idle' but as having to productively engage in the market economy in order to satisfy your families basic needs. Given this understanding of 'work' (and it is surely blinkered to interpret it in a different way) the fact that Mr. Romney's wife has not worked a day in her life (if it is a fact) is relevant to her understanding of these issues. She will not have the first-person acquaintance with these issues that a working woman has.

Oh yeah, disclaimer: since I'm at work I didn't watch the vid.

Yeah, this is a very stupid comment, and that advisor better apologize or resign.

Seems reasonable in the context. The context being 'the kinds of economics issues the majority of women in [the USA] are facing' such as 'How do we feed our kids' and 'how do we send [our kids] to school'. In that context, the relevant understanding of 'working' is not as the antonym of 'idle' but as having to productively engage in the market economy in order to satisfy your families basic needs. Given this understanding of 'work' (and it is surely blinkered to interpret it in a different way) the fact that Mr. Romney's wife has not worked a day in her life (if it is a fact) is relevant to her understanding of these issues. She will not have the first-person acquaintance with these issues that a working woman has.
So, you think a typical mom flipping burgers at McD's has a better understanding, simply by virtue of her having worked in a business and received a paycheck?

Yeah, this is a very stupid comment, and that advisor better apologize or resign.

She isn't backing down, she's doubling down... but at least high ranking Dems are condemning what she said.

Good point but poorly phrased imo.

-Edit-

Here's the quote.

"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said on CNN.

"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."

Good point but poorly phrased imo.

-Edit-

Here's the quote.

"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said on CNN.

"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."

It's a retarded point.
You don't have to do something directly to understand it. That's why we have language and empathy... I doubt Ann Romney is a total dolt, so she can get it, despite being a rich person who doesn't have to live it.

It's a retarded point.
You don't have to do something directly to understand it. That's why we have language and empathy... I doubt Ann Romney is a total dolt, so she can get it, despite being a rich person who doesn't have to live it.

Do you think it's fair to say that her "economic" experience is pretty atypical? Also, for the record, I'd totally be saying the same thing on the flip side of this. I don't think using a single mother of two (as she later quoted) as a source is a good idea either.

Rosen's point that women who bring up children can't know anything about the economy is ridiculous.

Romney's point that his wife is representative of what women care about is ridiculous.

So everyone looks stupid here. Sounds like election season.

I would hope she knows more about the economy than her husband, because he appears clueless.

Well, to a certain extent she could have made a point about Ann Romney. Many of the issues we here discuss I come at from an entirely perspective than many of your because I have led a very different life that the median here, so to speak.

But the way she approached it was offensive. Standard operating procedure to a large extent; it was done as an insult. Our opponent is either a moron or crooked, in this case his wife is lazy.

This is campaigning on the lowest rung of the common ladder. I would be insulted on behalf of the American people but maybe the Obama campaign is right. America might just have become that brutish and common. Maybe Obama will be proven right in his rabble rousing campaign, selling hatred and blame.

Romney has campaigned in exactly the same vein every step of the way. Maybe this is the only way to move the needle when the free ponies are gone.

Hate, mockery, scorn.

Lovely.

Here's her statement in context with the comments that she actually made:

Guess what? Your wife has never really worked a day in her life. She has never dealt with the economic issues that the majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how we feed our kids, how do we send them to schools, and why we worry about their future.I think claiming she doesn't think being a housewife is "work" is beyond absurd given the actual context of the remarks. Ann Romney is obviously just as clueless as Mitt is in regard to the problems of the middle class and the plight of the average woman whom the Republican Party continues to attack.

Just look at how Fox News is trying to spin it by deliberately taking it out of context as well:

iXoH8vE6mkM

So, you think a typical mom flipping burgers at McD's has a better understanding, simply by virtue of her having worked in a business and received a paycheck?

I think precisely what I say. From an economic perspective, Mrs. Romney seems to have lived a fairly comfortable life. She has never had to work to support herself or her family. Again, by 'work' here I mean 'remunerated employment'.

Consequently, she cannot possibly have the first-person understanding of what being in that situation is like. First-person understanding is often quite important; the direct acquaintance with a condition or event often has far more effect on a person than an indirect acquaintance with that condition or event. The direct and personal acquaintance with economic stress is likely to give one a more lively impression of the suffering caused by such stress. Bringing up this point, as Mz. Rosen is doing, is not 'bigotry' or 'bad taste' as you believe. This is especially so when, according to Mz. Rosen, Mr. Romney has stated that he is getting his appreciation of such issues from his wife. Bringing up this point is not, in my opinion, outside the realms of acceptable political discourse (and if it is, absolutely no discourse on personal experience is acceptable).

So that's what I mean. What I do not mean is that first-person understanding is necassary or sufficient to understanding the issues in question (and I said nothing that can be interpreted as implying such). Someone can gain a full and comprehensive appreciation for a difficulty without ever having experienced said difficulty. But it is not 'retarded' to be less receptive to someone who claims such an appreciation without first-person experience, especially in lieu of other evidence. To whit, if I told a soldier that I understood precisely what he had felt in the midst of active combat, it would not be odd for him to ask 'How so? You have never been in combat!' (and perhaps I could adequately reply, if I had interviewed many such soldiers and done extensive research). Mz. Rosen's remarks are, whilst not particularly incisive, valid.

It's a retarded point.
You don't have to do something directly to understand it. That's why we have language and empathy... I doubt Ann Romney is a total dolt, so she can get it, despite being a rich person who doesn't have to live it.

Yeah, but the Romney's are fairly well off, aren't they? I doubt his wife has to deal with the sorts of issues she claims to be able to relate to.

Good point but poorly phrased imo.

-Edit-

Here's the quote.

"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said on CNN.

"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."Umm yeah, some one who stays home to raise children is obviously not worried about what they eat or their future at all.

Here's her statement in context with the comments that she actually made:

I think claiming she doesn't think being a housewife is "work" is beyond absurd given the actual context of the remarks. Ann Romney is obviously just as clueless as Mitt is in regard to the problems of the middle class and the plight of the average woman whom the Republican Party continues to attack.

Just look at how Fox News is trying to spin it by deliberately taking it out of context as well:

iXoH8vE6mkM

I have to give you kudos for chutzpa. You want the bang for the insult without paying the bill for the insult.

This is sort of like the yard boy who raped the wife, the daughter and the family dog but still expects a tip for the work he did on the hedges.

I have to give you kudos for chutzpa. You want the bang for the insult without paying the bill for the insult.

This is sort of like the yard boy who raped the wife, the daughter and the family dog but still expects a tip for the work he did on the hedges.
The same can be said for many conservatives who are "upset" about this remark, given that before the comment was made, it represented their worldview. This is their hedge clipping moment.

The only people who could have possibly been insulted were the ones who deliberately distorted her actual comments by quote mining them, or those who believed what Fox News said after doing so.

The war on women is certainly not being waged by the Democrats. It is absurd to insinuate it is.

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/ta/2012/ta120409.gif

http://static.selfdeprecate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GOP-Pro-Life-War-Women-Cartoon.jpg

Umm yeah, some one who stays home to raise children is obviously not worried about what they eat or their future at all.

Unless you're saying that Romney's wife has not had financial security, this is a strawman.

Do you think it's fair to say that her "economic" experience is pretty atypical? Also, for the record, I'd totally be saying the same thing on the flip side of this. I don't think using a single mother of two (as she later quoted) as a source is a good idea either.
1st ladies typically have had "typical" economic experience... whatever that means.

Here's her statement in context with the comments that she actually made
We already had the context...
And, I find it hilarious you run to Foxnews to see what they are saying, as if them being jackasses excuses the democrat's jackassery...

I think precisely what I say. From an economic perspective, Mrs. Romney seems to have lived a fairly comfortable life. She has never had to work to support herself or her family. Again, by 'work' here I mean 'remunerated employment'.

Consequently, she cannot possibly have the first-person understanding of what being in that situation is like. and then blah blah... First-person understanding is often quite important; the direct acquaintance with a condition or event often has far more effect on a person than an indirect acquaintance with that condition or event. The direct and personal acquaintance with economic stress is likely to give one a more lively impression of the suffering caused by such stress. Bringing up this point, as Mz. Rosen is doing, is not 'bigotry' or 'bad taste' as you believe. This is especially so when, according to Mz. Rosen, Mr. Romney has stated that he is getting his appreciation of such issues from his wife. Bringing up this point is not, in my opinion, outside the realms of acceptable political discourse (and if it is, absolutely no discourse on personal experience is acceptable).

So that's what I mean. What I do not mean is that first-person understanding is necassary or sufficient to understanding the issues in question (and I said nothing that can be interpreted as implying such). Someone can gain a full and comprehensive appreciation for a difficulty without ever having experienced said difficulty. But it is not 'retarded' to be less receptive to someone who claims such an appreciation without first-person experience, especially in lieu of other evidence. To whit, if I told a soldier that I understood precisely what he had felt in the midst of active combat, it would not be odd for him to ask 'How so? You have never been in combat!' (and perhaps I could adequately reply, if I had interviewed many such soldiers and done extensive research). Mz. Rosen's remarks are, whilst not particularly incisive, valid.
1) You don't need 1st hand experience... no President in the USA's history has ever had that 1st hand experience, and VERY few of their wives had it either. Fact.
2) We are equipped with a brain to understand things we don't experience 1st hand. Fact.
3) It absolutely is in bad taste... opinion. There is no reason to go there... a smart, educated woman like Rosen should be able to realize that... so, I think she had an agenda, discredit Ann Romney as a lazy, traditionalist person, out of touch. It is absolutely insulting... and Ann isn't running for President. Targetting wives is poor.

Yeah, but the Romney's are fairly well off, aren't they? I doubt his wife has to deal with the sorts of issues she claims to be able to relate to.
How many 1st wives had that? These people generally come from the upper crust...
And, so what... they are rich, big deal... it's not unusual for politicians... most of their wives didn't bother raising 5 kids either...

The only people who could have possibly been insulted were the ones who deliberately distorted her actual comments by quote mining them
Oh, I didn't realize you were appointed the judge of what people could possibly find offensive.
I guess David Axelrod was just quote mining...
Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod tweeted: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney."
Get real, man, you are hardly in touch with the population at large to speak for them and act as the arbiter of what is ok or not ok based on context. I'm not a mother, and I found it insulting...

1.) There is no out of context analysis here. What Rosen said was extremely specific, its a normal extreme feminist position to call any women who chooses a domestic calling an Uncle Tom. We just don't hear them be so honest about it at this level. Her honsesty, despite the dishonesty of her defenders, is quite refreshing actually.

2.) To their credit, senior Democrats like Axelrod hare vehemently denouncing this. Although there is certain an extreme political necessity to do this, I find his and others reaction to he genuine.

3.) While Mitt Romney's family has always been well off, Mitt and Anne personally were not . When they started raising their children they were not rich, not even upper middle class. In fact, their first two children were born while Mitt was still at school. I don't think there was any time they were poor, but to pretend they were raising their children out of mansions with no regard for the day to day hassles of maintaining and running a household is wishful thinking on the part of mud slingers. It should be remembered that Romney is significantly older than Obama, we tend to think of Romney as having always been rich because he has been since he became a public figure, but he only got on our radar when he was over 60.

4.) Obama attempted to make the case that he knows women's issues because Michelle was forced to work in order to support the children. Unfortunately for him Michelle and him combined have been making 300K-400K a year in salary alone for the entirety lives of their children. I don't see to many people claiming Michelle is clueless on women's issues when she obviously has no connection to either house moms or low income/middle class women during any part of her child raising years.

So which is it? Anne AND Michelle are clueless? Or are they both women with relevant points of view?

The contest is ridiculous on its face, the fact that anyone would stand behind Rosen's comments is also ridiculous on its face. Even if Anne was the child of Warren Buffet with a personall worth of millions from birth, it would still be a ridiculous position.

Unless you're saying that Romney's wife has not had financial security, this is a strawman.

Any more than most other middle class families in their early marraige? No, they did not. Are you claiming most American women have no financial security and are just teetering on the edge of financial oblivion? I hope not, for your sake.

Poorly phrased statement? Check
Easy to misinterpret in context? Check
News outlet takes the misinterpretation and runs with it? Check
Why should we care?

I think precisely what I say. From an economic perspective, Mrs. Romney seems to have lived a fairly comfortable life. She has never had to work to support herself or her family. Again, by 'work' here I mean 'remunerated employment'.

Consequently, she cannot possibly have the first-person understanding of what being in that situation is like. First-person understanding is often quite important; the direct acquaintance with a condition or event often has far more effect on a person than an indirect acquaintance with that condition or event. The direct and personal acquaintance with economic stress is likely to give one a more lively impression of the suffering caused by such stress. Bringing up this point, as Mz. Rosen is doing, is not 'bigotry' or 'bad taste' as you believe. This is especially so when, according to Mz. Rosen, Mr. Romney has stated that he is getting his appreciation of such issues from his wife. Bringing up this point is not, in my opinion, outside the realms of acceptable political discourse (and if it is, absolutely no discourse on personal experience is acceptable).

So that's what I mean. What I do not mean is that first-person understanding is necassary or sufficient to understanding the issues in question (and I said nothing that can be interpreted as implying such). Someone can gain a full and comprehensive appreciation for a difficulty without ever having experienced said difficulty. But it is not 'retarded' to be less receptive to someone who claims such an appreciation without first-person experience, especially in lieu of other evidence. To whit, if I told a soldier that I understood precisely what he had felt in the midst of active combat, it would not be odd for him to ask 'How so? You have never been in combat!' (and perhaps I could adequately reply, if I had interviewed many such soldiers and done extensive research). Mz. Rosen's remarks are, whilst not particularly incisive, valid.

Unfortunately it is much easier (and politically expedient) to scream “ZOMG!?!?! Obama hates housewives?!?!?!” than to acknowledge the true context of her remarks.

Sure they could have been phrased better, but this is hardly the outrage some would lead us to believe.

It is absolutely insulting... and Ann isn't running for President. Targetting wives is poor.

Double standard. Romney himself brought his wife into the discussion by saying she tells him what women really care about. To complain about people reacting to that statement by addressing his wife’s point of view is preposterous.

How many 1st wives had that? These people generally come from the upper crust...
And, so what... they are rich, big deal... it's not unusual for politicians... most of their wives didn't bother raising 5 kids either...

Another false argument. Who cares what other first ladies’ upbringings were? How many presidents (or prospective ones anyway) tout their wives’ views as their main perspective on women’s economic issues? It would be equally ridiculous for any other prospective president to make this statement.

Unfortunately it is much easier (and politically expedient) to scream “ZOMG!?!?! Obama hates housewives?!?!?!” than to acknowledge the true context of her remarks.

Sure they could have been phrased better, but this is hardly the outrage some would lead us to believe.Somehow, I doubt it will help erase that huge gap the attack on women by Republican candidates for president has recently caused. But try they will...

So you agree that all the initiatives Michelle is involved with boil down to an out of touch rich debutant playing in circles she can't possibly be relevant to?

You understand Michelle is held in awe by feminists and the media as the anointed queen of not only women's issues, but also family issues? Are you about to denounce her?

So you agree that all the initiatives Michelle is involved with boil down to an out of touch rich debutant playing in circles she can't possibly be relevant to?

You understand Michelle is held in awe by feminists and the media as the anointed queen of not only women's issues, but also family issues? Are you about to denounce her?

Not at all. And you are further taking things out of context. The issue here is Mitt Romney getting his economic perspective on women’s issues primarily from his wife.

I had no idea that Michelle had been promoted to demigod status by so many. Or are we simply referring to the deference shown to all first ladies, including those who believe in astrology?

Not at all. And you are further taking things out of context. The issue here is Mitt Romney getting his economic perspective on women’s issues primarily from his wife.

Adivce for some in this thread: claiming something is out of context without demonstrating so does not a position make. Nobody has provided anything regarding context that alters the literal meaning of Rosen.

And no, I am not taking anything out of context. Not only does Obama claim he has a window into women's issues (including economic) due to Michelle's perspective, he has her running initiatives dealing with them. This is a women who was far more well off than the Romney's during most of their child rearing days and has no experiance as a house mom (a significant number of women). No only that, but he claims Michelle was forced to work instead of stay at home because 400K a year isn't enough to raise a family on. If you are women staying at home to raise the family when your husband makes 50K a year, would that sound endearing to you? In touch with the economic reality of most women?

So I ask you again, why does Rosen's comments not apply to Michelle, and why are you not decrying the gross cronyism and nepotism of Obama installing this uqualified know nothing upper crust blue blood (according to the standards you and the likes of Forma have embraced in this thread) as a key adviser an leader of government initiatives?

1) You don't need 1st hand experience... no President in the USA's history has ever had that 1st hand experience, and VERY few of their wives had it either. Fact.
2) We are equipped with a brain to understand things we don't experience 1st hand. Fact.
3) It absolutely is in bad taste... opinion. There is no reason to go there... a smart, educated woman like Rosen should be able to realize that... so, I think she had an agenda, discredit Ann Romney as a lazy, traditionalist person, out of touch. It is absolutely insulting... and Ann isn't running for President. Targetting wives is poor.


I'm having some difficulty understanding what you are actually trying to say in this response. Point two is aptly dealt with by my second paragraph (the one you charmingly elide as 'blah blah blah'); I acknowledge as much. However, correspondingly it is clearly true that first-hand experience can help. It seems this point is completely tangential to the discussion.

Point one is not tangential but, as far as I can interpret it, obviously false. In general, presidents and their wives have first hand experience in a variety of endeavors. Often this is deemed important (hence, Romney's emphasis on his experience in business). As pertains to the point in question, it seems like you are trying to assert that no president in US history has had to work for a living at any point in this life. This is obviously false (rather than 'fact'). Perhaps you are making a slightly more defensible claim; that no president has had first-hand experience of economics hardship. But this again is absurd, off the top of my head I can list a handful of presidents born into relative poverty. Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Ike, Lyndon Jackson and Clinton were all, as far as I am aware, 'born poor'.

As for your third point, I am glad you concede that this is not an instance of bigotry. Is it in bad taste? As you say, there is more leeway for opinion here. But the wives of both presidential candidates have actively engaged themselves in their husbands campaign; they have engaged themselves as political figures. To add to this, according to MZ. Rosen Mr Romney has stated that a significant portion of his understanding of 'women's hardship' comes from that transmitted through his wife. I do not see what mores of etiquette prevent one from questioning her capacity in the light of this. She has accepted the role of a public figure and her husband has publicly referenced her in a relevant context. If you can explain, please do.

Adivce for some in this thread: claiming something is out of context without demonstrating so does not a position make.

Too bad I did demonstrate (or attempt to anyway) the context again. In case you missed it: The issue here is Mitt Romney getting his economic perspective on women’s issues primarily from his wife.

Every word is important, for, you know, context.

So I ask you again, why does Rosen's comments not apply to Michelle, and why are you not decrying the gross cronyism and nepotism of Obama installing this uqualified know nothing upper crust blue blood (according to the standards you and the likes of Forma have embraced in this thread) as a key adviser an leader of government initiatives?

Because the context is completely different. (not to mention your assertions being somewhat incorrect)

On a side note, this whole brouhaha is generating some interesting quotes from the Romney campaign and Ann Romney herself:

A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney’s campaign, Andrea Saul, said: “The issue is not whether Ann has spent time working outside the home. Of course she did other things besides raise a family, including volunteering her time for causes that she cares about.”

“The real issue,” Ms. Saul said, “is that women make different choices regarding family and careers, and they should be supported no matter what decision they make.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/ann-romneys-resume-includes-more-than-stay-at-home-mother/#


"My career choice was to be a mother, and I think all of us need to know that we need to respect the choices women make," said Ann Romney to Fox News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/ann-romney_n_1420710.html

What, exactly, is the point of this thread? That the commentator was out of line because raising 5 kids provides the same insight into our country's economic situation as holding a real job?

So, you think a typical mom flipping burgers at McD's has a better understanding, simply by virtue of her having worked in a business and received a paycheck?

She certainly has a better understanding of the difficulty of finding a job and the importance of being responsible for herself.

everyone looks stupid here. Sounds like election season.

Yup...

Umm yeah, some one who stays home to raise children is obviously not worried about what they eat or their future at all.

Not if you're married to the governor of Massachusetts.

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

Selective omission of facts is fun. Point #4, for example, omits the fact that this same aid would be cut to adult men who have no kids.

1st ladies typically have had "typical" economic experience... whatever that means.




Others above have already addressed this point so I'll add to what I said earlier.

I think it reflects poorly on any governor (little 'g', ie someone who governs in this case) to make statements like, "I primarily get my information on women's issues from my wife." What qualifications does she have to speak on behalf of "most" women? What research has she done? If Obama, or anyone else, was getting most of his information about women's issues from Michelle/their wife (and one could show me evidence), I'd say the exact same thing.

Also, more quotes from Rosen:

"This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday. "This is about the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget and she doesn't know what to do."

Full context straight from the horse’s mouth:


By Hilary Rosen, CNN Political Contributor

(CNN) -- My Twitter feed was on fire after an appearance Wednesday night on CNN's AC360, where I said that I thought it was wrong for Mitt Romney to be using his wife as his guide to women's economic struggles when she "had never worked a day in her life."

Oh my, you should read the tweets and the hate mail I got after that. The accusations were flying. I don't know what it means to be a mom (I have 2 children). I obviously don't value the work that a mother does and how hard it is (the hardest job I have ever had); and I absolutely hate anyone who doesn't have the same views as I do (hate is a strong word).

Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women's rights and advancement as a way to score political points. When it comes to supporting policies that would actually help women, their silence has been deafening. I don't need lectures from the Republican National Committee on supporting women and fighting to increase opportunities for women; I've been doing it my whole career.

If they want to attack me and distract the public's attention away from their nominee's woeful record, it just demonstrates how much they just don't get it.

My favorite tweet was from someone who said that Republicans like Ann Romney so much more than Mitt that by attacking her (which I didn't), I got people to defend him in a way they never would. That last one, I can actually understand.

Now let's be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home versus women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is not a choice that most women have in America today.

Why does this even matter? It matters purely because Mitt Romney put the issue of his wife's views squarely on the table.

As Ruth Marcus noted in her column yesterday in the Washington Post, Romney, when asked last week about the gender gap, twice said he wished his wife could take the question.

"My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me," Romney told newspaper editors, "and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy."

So it begs the question, is Ann Romney Mitt's touchstone for women who are struggling economically or not? Nothing in Ann Romney's history as we have heard it -- hardworking mom she may have been -- leads me to believe that Mitt has chosen the right expert to get feedback on this problem he professes to be so concerned about.

I have nothing against Ann Romney. She seems like a nice lady who has raised nice boys, struggled with illness and handles its long-term effects with grace and dignity. I admire her grit in talking about her illness publicly.

What is more important to me and 57% of current women voters is her husband saying he supports women's economic issues because they are the only issues that matter to us and then he fails on even those.

Let's put aside for a moment his views on women's health issues -- such as his pledge to repeal funding for Planned Parenthood or repeal Title X -- which provides important health services for poor women, and true anecdotes (such as when he was a Bishop in his church, he actually went to a congregant's hospital room and told a young single mother who had just given birth that she was shaming the church and should give her baby away). Let's put those issues of respect and health dignity away.

Let's just focus on his economic record on behalf of women. When Romney ran Bain Capital, less than 10% of the senior workforce were women. And he said in his 1994 Senate race that it was because he had trouble finding qualified women to be executives. Is there a woman alive who believes that?

I personally believe that women hate the way our health issues were made a political football by the Republicans in the last several months. But I am pragmatic enough to believe that the economic issues do matter greatly to women and men alike. But the only way that Mitt Romney will succeed in closing the wide gender gap between him and President Obama is if he stops pretending that it doesn't exist.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/opinion/ann-romney-hilary-rosen/index.html


Unfortunately I fear that this will do little to stop the faux outrage, both here and in the “real world.”

(And before someone goes all literal on me, no I did not just call Hilary Rosen a horse.)

Unfortunately it is much easier (and politically expedient) to scream “ZOMG!?!?! Obama hates housewives?!?!?!” than to acknowledge the true context of her remarks.
Ummm, no one said anything about Obama, at least as far as I know. I know I certainly didn't. So, completely irrelevant post.
Sure they could have been phrased better, but this is hardly the outrage some would lead us to believe.
When did you and formy become the judge of not only what is or isn't offensive, but to what extent it is or isn't?
I was never informed, and I feel jipped.
Double standard. Romney himself brought his wife into the discussion by saying she tells him what women really care about. To complain about people reacting to that statement by addressing his wife’s point of view is preposterous.
Oh, so, it's ok to be insulting? You could raise the point to say she might be out of touch, but saying the woman hasn't worked a day in her life... I bet, in reality, she's worked a bit harder than many.
Another false argument. Who cares what other first ladies’ upbringings were? How many presidents (or prospective ones anyway) tout their wives’ views as their main perspective on women’s economic issues? It would be equally ridiculous for any other prospective president to make this statement.
"False argument"? Ah, that's right, I forget, you get to judge what is and isn't in this forum... sorry. I don't feel it is AT ALL a false argument.
How many presidents have touted their wives understanding of issues? How about Clinton and Health Care? She had what 1st hand knowledge of the insurance industry? Oh, she just talked to people who do, and has a brain, and can understand it.

Guess what... huge shocker... I guarantee Ann Romney spends a LOT of time talking to females about this stuff, and she gives him their perspectives.

Not at all. And you are further taking things out of context. The issue here is Mitt Romney getting his economic perspective on women’s issues primarily from his wife.
Again, she talks to women... who talk to women... And, how dare he mention his wife's input is important to him. You're right, no other presidents have dared to do that, especially with such a lazy woman.

Full context... Unfortunately I fear that this will do little to stop the faux outrage, both here and in the “real world.”
Oh, so, Axelrod is a phony... ok. I love this concept that a few of you are espousing, it isn't possible to find it insulting in full context.

Why did Rosen apologize then?

Is it possible that you supporters of her now retracted statement are not putting yourself in anyone else's shoes? Nah, not super libs... they are the ultimate in empathy... unless of course it is about anything deemed somewhat conservative.

Disgusting.

A couple of points:

1. This wouldn’t be an issue at all if it weren’t and election year. It is being blown way out of proportion for the primary reason of making Romney look better, and by association Obama look worse.
2. Axelrod, et al, are not phonies. They recognize the political crap-storm this has become and are distancing themselves from it as best they can. That says nothing about the basis for the remarks in the first place, but says tons about the political spin machine that both sides employ.
3. Rosen did not apologize. She clarified her remarks. Did you not read her column?
4. I am not a “super-lib”. I am a left leaning, moderate realist.

Lastly I still think you are missing the point. The issue here is not whether Ann Romney has “worked a day in her life”. The issue here is Mitt Romney using her as his primary source of his views with regard to women’s economic needs.

Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary

How many damn times do I have to say it for it to sink in? There is nothing wrong with using your wife’s perspectives to help you develop your own views on something. There is something wrong with using them as your main source – especially if you are running for president and the topic is of great interest to at least half of the nation.

A couple of points:

1. This wouldn’t be an issue at all if it weren’t and election year. It is being blown way out of proportion for the primary reason of making Romney look better, and by association Obama look worse.
2. Axelrod, et al, are not phonies. They recognize the political crap-storm this has become and are distancing themselves from it as best they can. That says nothing about the basis for the remarks in the first place, but says tons about the political spin machine that both sides employ.
3. Rosen did not apologize. She clarified her remarks. Did you not read her column?
4. I am not a “super-lib”. I am a left leaning, moderate realist.

Lastly I still think you are missing the point. The issue here is not whether Ann Romney has “worked a day in her life”. The issue here is Mitt Romney using her as her primary source of his views with regard to women’s economic needs.

Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary

How many damn times do I have to say it for it to sink in? There is nothing wrong with using your wife’s perspectives to help you develop your own views on something. There is something wrong with using them as your main source – especially if you are running for president and the topic is of great interest to at least half of the nation.
1) Yes, politics as usual. What makes it noteable is that some people defend her... even after she apologized.
2) Nice backpaddle
3) She did apologize. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413216-503544/hilary-rosen-apologizes-to-ann-romney-for-poorly-chosen-words/
"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," Rosen said in a statement. "As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen."
4) If the shoe fits, wear it. I don't think you are a super lib. I do find it repulsive that you're going to such great lengths to support this crap...

Your point of "primary", you sound kind of like you are blowing it out of proportion by repeating it so many times. Believe me, Mitt's understanding of the economy, it transcends gender... And he knows more than you and I combined, and I have an idea either of us knows more about it than his wife...
So, yes, he's throwing a bone to his wife... do you really think she's going to be setting policy?
Relax. (Should I repeat that until it sinks in ;) )

Unfortunately I fear that this will do little to stop the faux outrage, both here and in the “real world.”Of course it won't. They likely already knew what the real answer was long before engaging in this partisan attack.

And I wonder how many of those who are vociferously complaining about this think that welfare moms also "work" in exactly the same context, probably quite a great deal more than Mrs Romney does with the help she likely receives from her maids and nannies.

Of course it won't. They already knew what the real answer was long before engaging in this absurd partisan attack.

And I wonder how many of those who are vociferously complaining about this think that welfare moms also "work" in exactly the same context, probably quite a great deal more than Mrs Romney does with the help of her maids and nanniess.
I think the issue there is not "work" done, but money the family contributes to society...
The Romney's might be able to gap a considerable distance there...

I love how you try to get it to the ugliest common denominator though. It helps.

Full context straight from the horse’s mouth:



Unfortunately I fear that this will do little to stop the faux outrage, both here and in the “real world.”

(And before someone goes all literal on me, no I did not just call Hilary Rosen a horse.)

Again, you seem to not understand how context works.

There are two outrages here.

1.) That apparently a house wife can not have any insight into the economics of women, despite a great many women being house wives.

2.) That being a house wife is not work.

Nothing any of you carrying on about "context" have done does anything to alter the very specific and purposeful meat of the comment. If you want to wax on about how a rich person doesn't know about the common women fine (as long as you apply the same logic to Michelle, which you so far tellingly are not willing to do).

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with what Rosen said. It wasn't the wealth that she was pointing out makes here out of contact with other women (she said nothing about that), it is not having an acceptable vocation outside the house. Not being in the job market. And just to make it painfully clear that this was her point despite all the hair pulling of her apologists, she felt the need to qualify it by preempting the most obvious objection by claiming being a house wife is not work.

If you want to support her in that feel free, but don't be surprised when tens of millions of women (and men as it works in their sphere too) disagree with you, because they think think they know a lot about the economics of being a women (and are of course right), and a guarantee you there are plenty of businesses and consumer research groups pandering to them that will happily tell you this.

"Of the 121 million women age 16 years and over in the U.S., 72 million, or 59.5 percent, were labor force participants—working or looking for work"

http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm

Though not perfect, that leaves 40.5% of women not participating in the labor market or looking to join it. Obviously some of these are going to be retired women who did work, or women who worked at one time and who left it for whatever reason, many times to raise children. The point being you are quite seriously trying to claim that up to 49 million women in this country are not qualified to discuss the economics of women. Does that sound like something you would say on the podium in an election year? Is that something you think those millions of women are going to like to hear?

These are the simple facts you will have to accept. I realize there are a few posters that have to defend her out of some sort of misguided loyalty, but there is no logical way to extract anything out of it besides the above, as the failure to do so thus far makes abundantly clear.

We went through this same convoluted liberal defense mechanism with Obama's Supreme Court gaffe, and to be honest all this reflexive unconditional defense does is display the self consciousness of those defenders. If you really want to minimize this do what Axelrod did, and do it for the reason he did it, honest recognition of a horrible comment by an out of touch person that needs to kept at a distance.

Being a house wife is work. Of course it is.

But earning our own income AND raisíng kids, thats a completely different game.

The wife of a billionaire wouldn't know first thing about that, even if she has two x-chromosomes in comon with the self providing women.

Being a house wife is work. Of course it is.

But earning our own income AND raisíng kids, thats a completely different game.

The wife of a billionaire wouldn't know first thing about that, even if she has two x-chromosomes in comon with the self providing women.
She'd probably understand it better than her husband... and could give him advice.

The poor guy said something that gets attacked, via his wife's life, which she's devoted herself too... and some people are defending it.

If I had a wife, and she had devoted her life to raising my 5 kids (which would be odd because I'd get fixed after 3 or 4!), and someone said something like that... it would hurt her feelings immensely.
And then I would hurt their nose.

Being a house wife is work. Of course it is.

But earning our own income AND raisíng kids, thats a completely different game.

The wife of a billionaire wouldn't know first thing about that, even if she has two x-chromosomes in comon with the self providing women.

Good thing the Romney's are not billionaires (not even close), and that when they were raising most of their children they were just a middle class family. As I said before, they had two children before Mitt had even finished school or had a full time job.

Thats all irrelevant though, as Rosen's comment has nothing to do with wealth, as she quite clearly mentioned nothing about wealth.

Her comment concerns whether a women who has chosen not to pursue a career or job outside of the home can comment on the economic circumstances of women. She says no. Up to 49 million US women likely disagree with her.

The point being you are quite seriously trying to claim that up to 49 million women in this country are not qualified to discuss the economics of women.

I have said nothing close to this, so I’d appreciate it if you would stop taking my statements out of context. (:D)

I already pointed out that Rosen’s words were quite poorly chosen. I am not defending her use of those words. At all. What I am defending is her overall point, which is being lost in all this “she said WHAT about raising children not being work?!?!” hoopla.

The root of her point is this:

So it begs the question, is Ann Romney Mitt's touchstone for women who are struggling economically or not? Nothing in Ann Romney's history as we have heard it -- hardworking mom she may have been -- leads me to believe that Mitt has chosen the right expert to get feedback on this problem he professes to be so concerned about.

So let’s stop bickering over a few words that everyone has admitted to being in poor form (and for which Rosen has apologized for – thanks kochman) and let’s start talking about the real issues here.

Oh, and one more thing. I have three kids. I do know a fair deal about how much work it is to raise them. ;)

If I had a wife, and she had devoted her life to raising my 5 kids (which would be odd because I'd get fixed after 3 or 4!), and someone said something like that... it would hurt her feelings immensely.
And then I would hurt their nose.

You probably shouldn't run for president then... :p

"But the argument that so many of Rosen's critics are missing is this -- she was trying to make a point about whether a wealthy woman who has never had to worry about choosing between buying groceries or paying the electric bill is the best person to be the Romney campaign's surrogate on how women and families are struggling economically today."

"Remember how the right got so riled up over the idea of Hillary Clinton advising her husband on health care policy?"

((both quotes from http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/12/opinion/bamberger-ann-romney/index.html?hpt=us_t2))

If she had wanted to make a point about the wealth she should have done that. She didn't do that.

We are not here to discuss what arguements you want to make in place of what Rosen said, or to consider her day after back tracking to be anything other than day after back tracking.

We are here to discuss what Rosen said.

If you want to discuss whether wealthy people can intelligently comment on anything involving non wealthy people start a thread about it, because nothing in the OP has anything to do with this.

And I will note, AGAIN, that the Romney;s were not wealthy when they started their family. But the Obama's were, and guess who just hosted a summit on women's economic issues at the White House not a week ago. It wasn't Anne Romney...

"Remember how the right got so riled up over the idea of Hillary Clinton advising her husband on health care policy?"

No, I remember when the country as a whole got riled up about Hillary Clinton being put IN CHARGE or health care policy reform.

Sort of like how all of you defending Rosen should be riled up about Michelle Obama being put in charge or all sorts of issues including women's economic forums that you have been bending over backwards trying to explain how people like her are unqualified to do.

Oh noes, women's economic forums!

Also, you're totally right, we all must embrace your interpretation of what she said. (Or what this thread is about evidently...) We must focus on one part of the bigger picture and talk about nothing else. Here, let me say this, "stay at home moms definitely work," can we move on discuss the actual conversation instead of just one sentence?

When we talk about faux-rage, this is it right here. You express moral indignation at someone saying "stay at home moms do not work" but care nothing for the larger issues facing women. (Why are you unwilling to discuss the larger picture?)

I'd also personally like to see a link showing Romney raised two kids while still in school, etc.

So let’s stop bickering over a few words that everyone has admitted to being in poor form (and for which Rosen has apologized for – thanks kochman) and let’s start talking about the real issues here.
I love when people defend something tooth and nail... the originator of the controversy apologizes... and the defenders say, well, never mind that... the real issue is...

The real issue is you were defending something disgusting and insulting, and acting like people who took offense were in the wrong...

Perhaps she got her method of attack from here at CFC. We often see, say, military types try to dismiss viewpoints because the other poster has never served a day of his life in the military.

Sort of like how all of you defending Rosen should be riled up about Michelle Obama being put in charge or all sorts of issues including women's economic forums that you have been bending over backwards trying to explain how people like her are unqualified to do.

Michelle Obama isn’t exactly the under-qualified slouch you are making her out to be:

Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin, where she first met her future husband. At the firm, she worked on marketing and intellectual property.[4] She continues to hold her law license, but as she no longer needs it for her work, it has been on a voluntary inactive status since 1993.[46]

In 1991, she held public sector positions in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor, and as Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development. In 1993, she became Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies.[19] She worked there nearly four years and set fundraising records for the organization that still stood 12 years after she left.[17]

In 1996, she served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, where she developed the University's Community Service Center.[47] In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs.[48] She continued to hold the University of Chicago Hospitals position during the primary campaign, but cut back to part time in order to spend time with her daughters as well as work for her husband's election;[49] she subsequently took a leave of absence from her job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama


But I digress, that discussion should be saved for another thread.

Perhaps she got her method of attack from here at CFC. We often see, say, military types try to dismiss viewpoints because the other poster has never served a day of his life in the military.
Little more specific knowledge involved in that specific example... but there are many other examples that don't require such specific knowledge...

Apparently some think without a PhD in a subject, you can't know about it...

I love when people defend something tooth and nail... the originator of the controversy apologizes... and the defenders say, well, never mind that... the real issue is...

The real issue is you were defending something disgusting and insulting, and acting like people who took offense were in the wrong...

I take you to my first post in this thread:

Unfortunately it is much easier (and politically expedient) to scream “ZOMG!?!?! Obama hates housewives?!?!?!” than to acknowledge the true context of her remarks.

Sure they could have been phrased better, but this is hardly the outrage some would lead us to believe.


This is before I saw the apology or even Rosen’s column from today. I have been remarkably consistent with my views on this. Rosen used a poor choice of words to express her point. That poor choice of words has clouded the issue and created the perfect opportunity to distract from that point.

But, we weren't using it to assail Obama... so... no.

But, we weren't using it to assail Obama... so... no.
1.) The second sentence is the main point of my above post
2.) I’m not allowed any hyperbolic liberty? :p

http://static.selfdeprecate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GOP-Pro-Life-War-Women-Cartoon.jpgRe Last Cartoon: PP doesn't provide actual breast cancer screenings so I fail to see the point of that one.

Re Fox news running with this:

Morning TV hosts Mika Brzezinski and Soledad O’Brien on Thursday condemned Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney being a stay-at-home mom on their respective MSNBC and CNN shows.

...


On Fox, Rosen’s comments received less coverage and attention, but “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy did chime in to call Rosen “clueless.”

“Is this a genius thing for a Democratic strategist who works for the DNC to do?” asked Doocy sarcastically. “Keep in mind, they’ve been trying to say that the Republicans are waging a war on women, right? That’s phony, that’s made up… You realize she’s clueless.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75065.html#ixzz1rrTd1QgC

Oh noes, women's economic forums!

I am not the problem with rich women hosting such events, you are.

Also, you're totally right, we all must embrace your interpretation of what she said. (Or what this thread is about evidently...)

There in lies your problem, you are interpreting. Try reading instead.

We must focus on one part of the bigger picture and talk about nothing else. Here, let me say this, "stay at home moms definitely work," can we move on discuss the actual conversation instead of just one sentence?

In regards to Rosen's comment, which this thread is about (as per the title and OP), the bigger picture is irrelevant and Rosen doesn't care about it.

You want to discuss the bigger picture because you don't want to discuss Rosen's comment. I might be willing to go off topic with you after you address Rosen's comment in its entirety, right now any discussion would be predicated on falsehoods because you won't address the reason for the discussion in the first place.

When we talk about faux-rage, this is it right here. You express moral indignation at someone saying "stay at home moms do not work" but care nothing for the larger issues facing women.

There you go again, apologizing for Rosen. The simple fact is what Rosen did say something outrageous, and there is nothing faux about being outraged about it. As well as the hamfisted attempts to apologize for her.

(Why are you unwilling to discuss the larger picture?)

Because it is not the topic of this thread, and because you are using that to avoid addressing the topic of the thread.

If Rosen wanted this topic to be about the bigger picture, she should have made a comment relevant to the bigger picture.

If you want to discuss the bigger picture, stop hiding behind it or start a thread exclusively for it.

I'd also personally like to see a link showing Romney raised two kids while still in school, etc.

Its a shame so many know nothing about the people the are decrying as out of touch blue bloods:

T"he couple's first son was born in 1970[12] while both were undergraduates at Brigham Young,[15] living in a $75-a-month basement apartment,[16] which Mitt had transferred to based upon her request.[13] After he graduated, the couple moved to Boston so that he could attend Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Slowed down by parenthood, she later finished her undergraduate work by gaining a semester and half's worth of credits via taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School,[15] from which she graduated in 1975[1] with a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree with a concentration in French language.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Romney#Marriage_and_children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

Not only was Mitt in school, SHE was in school too. They both finished their education in 1975, by which time two of their children were already born. On top of that, Romney would not get his job at Bane, from which his wealth came from, until 1977. His first child (born in 1970) would be seven before he even started Bane, let alone accumulated his wealth.

Note their living conditions when they started their family, I have never lived in a basement apartment...

So, according to a certain DNC advisor (Hilary Rosen), a mother of 5 children has "never worked a day in her life"... because raising children is easy?
Starting at 0:50 the tirade begins...
0vrE7DG1OWc

I wonder how many children Rosen has?
I can barely handle 1 dog, much less 5 young children... I guess she's super lazy though.

Is this not a form of bigotry? When you attack housewives? It isn't like this housewife has no kids and doesn't do volunteer work, etc... I find it, at a minimum, in bad taste.

Hey, why are you defending that welfare queen? Living off her husband... next thing you know republicans there will be calling for more welfare for single mothers! What the world has come to! :lol:

Michelle Obama isn’t exactly the under-qualified slouch you are making her out to be:

I didn't call her a slouch. I haven't claimed she is unqualified to do anything in this thread. I am simply taking your standard (that rich women know nothing about the economics of women) and applying it consistantly.

So, please tell my how any of the jobs in the article you posted make her any more qualified to comment on the economic conditions of middle class and lower income women? Are most women administrators at the University of Chicago? That is certainly impressive, but how is it relevant? Or more relevant than say, being a housewife, something dozens of millions of American women and Anne Romney have in common?

If Rosen wanted this topic to be about the bigger picture, she should have made a comment relevant to the bigger picture.

She did. But you conveniently dismiss it as day after backtracking.

I am not the problem with rich women hosting such events, you are.

There in lies your problem, you are interpreting. Try reading instead.

In regards to Rosen's comment, which this thread is about (as per the title and OP), the bigger picture is irrelevant and Rosen doesn't care about it.

You want to discuss the bigger picture because you don't want to discuss Rosen's comment. I might be willing to go off topic with you after you address Rosen's comment in its entirety, right now any discussion would be predicated on falsehoods because you won't address the reason for the discussion in the first place.

There you go again, apologizing for Rosen. The simple fact is what Rosen did say something outrageous, and there is nothing faux about being outraged about it. As well as the hamfisted attempts to apologize for her.

Because it is not the topic of this thread, and because you are using that to avoid addressing the topic of the thread.

If Rosen wanted this topic to be about the bigger picture, she should have made a comment relevant to the bigger picture.

If you want to discuss the bigger picture, stop hiding behind it or start a thread exclusively for it.




What a joke. She apologized. I have not defended it. You quoted me literally disagreeing with her. It is clear to me that you are in effect screaming as loud as you can fingers in your ear doing everything you can to avoid the actual conversation.

I didn't call her a slouch. I haven't claimed she is unqualified to do anything in this thread. I am simply taking your standard (that rich women know nothing about the economics of women) and applying it consistantly.

Show me where I have said that rich women know nothing about the economics of women, and that this is somehow my “standard”. You are completely misinterpreting my comments. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is unintentional.

If it is the day after, then it isn't the comment in question.

I think you are extremely naive to take a convenient day after revision, after consulting with publicity experts and an angry Axelrod no doubt, as anything other than cover.

She said what she said, it is completely logically consistent. If what she had said didn't make any sense then I would give her the benefit of the doubt, but she presented a complete thought devoid of vagueness or any other excuse to giver her wiggle room the day after. Face it, you are backing a loser.

Apparently some think without a PhD in a subject, you can't know about it...

No, but you probably ought not to try and talk about it beyond the basics. I like to think that I know a fair bit about history, but I'm no longer stupid enough to argue about it with Dachs, for example.

If it is the day after, then it isn't the comment in question.

I think you are extremely naive to take a convenient day after revision, after consulting with publicity experts and an angry Axelrod no doubt, as anything other than cover.

She said what she said, it is completely logically consistent. If what she had said didn't make any sense then I would give her the benefit of the doubt, but she presented a complete thought devoid of vagueness or any other excuse to giver her wiggle room the day after. Face it, you are backing a loser.

Thing is, her initial comments (live on TV) don't disagree with the longer, well thought out and easier to present complex context version she gave the next day.

So I assume if Romney gets a 3 a.m. call regarding the overseas stock markets crashing, he will hand it over to his wife.

So I assume if Romney gets a 3 a.m. call regarding the overseas stock markets crashing, he will hand it over to his wife.

I should hope most Presidents would say 'I dunno, ask my Secretary of the Treasury'.

What a joke. She apologized. I have not defended it. You quoted me literally disagreeing with her. It is clear to me that you are in effect screaming as loud as you can fingers in your ear doing everything you can to avoid the actual conversation.

She did not apologize, she denied what she said and then tried to substitute it with something that has no relation to the original comment. "I used poor wording" is not an apology, it is an excuse and avenue to quibble.

And you did not disagree with her in total, just in the "Here, let me say this, "stay at home moms definitely work," part, which says nothing about the other half of her comment that women who do not have jobs outside the home are not in touch with the economics of being a woman.

Once you deny that, and accept Anne Romney's advise is relevant and at least as authoritative as Michelle Obama on this, I will know you are no longer covering for Rosen and are being consistent.

I should hope most Presidents would say 'I dunno, ask my Secretary of the Treasury'.
Based on the last couple of decades or so worth of Secretaries of Treasury, asking the First Lady sounds pretty good. Of course, with Newt, he could ask the First, Second, and Third Ladies.

Show me where I have said that rich women know nothing about the economics of women, and that this is somehow my “standard”. You are completely misinterpreting my comments. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is unintentional.

Every post of yours in this thread is pushing that position.

First off you deny, for no good reason, that Rosen was discrediting house wives as not working at all, and then you try to stuff a manufactured argument about Rosen meaning Anne Romney didn't work because she was wealthy and thus can't provide good advice.

Are you reversing yourself now? Can Anne Romney give good advice? If not, why not? And if you think she can, why the hell are you defending Rosen?!

Thing is, her initial comments (live on TV) don't disagree with the longer, well thought out and easier to present complex context version she gave the next day.

Thats sort of the point, now isn't it? I would hope so too, she had a whole day and an army of publicists to help her out.

Axelrod thinks differently though, and he has ZERO reasons to condemn her if he knew all along that's what she meant. Is Axelrod a shill for the Republicans now too?

Can Anne Romney give good advice?
If she can, now would be a good time to start.

Perhaps all of Romney's flip flopping can be explained by him having a woman or two on the side and spouting off the advice he is getting from multiple pillow talkings.

I was about to comment on the mind-numbing triviality of partisan politics in the US, when I remembered pastygate (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/03/29/pastygate-westminster-row-over-whether-tories-eat-bakery-products-rumbles-on-86908-23805780/). :blush:

Seems reasonable in the context. The context being 'the kinds of economics issues the majority of women in [the USA] are facing' such as 'How do we feed our kids' and 'how do we send [our kids] to school'. In that context, the relevant understanding of 'working' is not as the antonym of 'idle' but as having to productively engage in the market economy in order to satisfy your families basic needs. Given this understanding of 'work' (and it is surely blinkered to interpret it in a different way) the fact that Mr. Romney's wife has not worked a day in her life (if it is a fact) is relevant to her understanding of these issues. She will not have the first-person acquaintance with these issues that a working woman has.

I think precisely what I say. From an economic perspective, Mrs. Romney seems to have lived a fairly comfortable life. She has never had to work to support herself or her family. Again, by 'work' here I mean 'remunerated employment'.

Consequently, she cannot possibly have the first-person understanding of what being in that situation is like. First-person understanding is often quite important; the direct acquaintance with a condition or event often has far more effect on a person than an indirect acquaintance with that condition or event. The direct and personal acquaintance with economic stress is likely to give one a more lively impression of the suffering caused by such stress. Bringing up this point, as Mz. Rosen is doing, is not 'bigotry' or 'bad taste' as you believe. This is especially so when, according to Mz. Rosen, Mr. Romney has stated that he is getting his appreciation of such issues from his wife. Bringing up this point is not, in my opinion, outside the realms of acceptable political discourse (and if it is, absolutely no discourse on personal experience is acceptable).

So that's what I mean. What I do not mean is that first-person understanding is necassary or sufficient to understanding the issues in question (and I said nothing that can be interpreted as implying such). Someone can gain a full and comprehensive appreciation for a difficulty without ever having experienced said difficulty. But it is not 'retarded' to be less receptive to someone who claims such an appreciation without first-person experience, especially in lieu of other evidence. To whit, if I told a soldier that I understood precisely what he had felt in the midst of active combat, it would not be odd for him to ask 'How so? You have never been in combat!' (and perhaps I could adequately reply, if I had interviewed many such soldiers and done extensive research). Mz. Rosen's remarks are, whilst not particularly incisive, valid.

You said it better than I could have, but I'm sad to note that it's pointless given the apparent limitations of the people you're talking to.

Or more relevant than say, being a housewife, something dozens of millions of American women and Anne Romney have in common?
I don't think Anne Romney has much in common with dozens of millions of housewives, despite being a "housewife" herself.

Sounds like someone has been watching the Simpsons too much.

You literally can't watch the Simpsons too much.

You hear that Dems. There is no war on woman. Obama said it!

I wonder how many children Rosen has?
I can barely handle 1 dog, much less 5 young children... I guess she's super lazy though.

Is this not a form of bigotry? When you attack housewives? It isn't like this housewife has no kids and doesn't do volunteer work, etc... I find it, at a minimum, in bad taste.

She has 2 children and works

Yes in the same way people whom work and look down on those on welfare or unemployed would be.

Bad taste by Democrate but given what Republicans have done, are doing this is hilarious. Hell Republicans are going at state level to repeal equal work equal pay act.
Fun times

The Catholic League elevates the tone of the debate:

Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.
https://twitter.com/#!/CatholicLeague/status/190427506904539136

2.) That being a house wife is not work.
I think this is a non-issue and was going to skip this thread, but your repeated responses drew me in. Why is it so absolutely clear to you that Rozen was saying this? Why are you so certain yours is the only correct interpretation?

I think this is a non-issue and was going to skip this thread, but your repeated responses drew me in. Why is it so absolutely clear to you that Rozen was saying this? Why are you so certain yours is the only correct interpretation?
Extensive experience as a housewife is the current theory.

The Catholic League elevates the tone of the debate:


https://twitter.com/#!/CatholicLeague/status/190427506904539136

That's so bigoted it deserves its own Useless thread. Since when does adopting children not count as raising them? I would think it's harder to raise adopted children than your own anyway. :confused:

It was a stupid thing to say, but lovett and Deviate said what she should have said on the first page.

Just a really god damn awful way of getting her point across, that frankly shows a lack of political nous.

2.) I’m not allowed any hyperbolic liberty? :p
I toyed with putting this in "The Chamber", but to me, that's almost like putting a topic in the gas chamber... with the prison guards ready to crack skulls at a moment's notice...
So, touche!

Hey, why are you defending that welfare queen? Living off her husband... next thing you know republicans there will be calling for more welfare for single mothers! What the world has come to! :lol:
A welfare mother of 5 is a public charge... pretty sure the Romney's have put in more than they've taken out.

So I assume if Romney gets a 3 a.m. call regarding the overseas stock markets crashing, he will hand it over to his wife.
I should hope most Presidents would say 'I dunno, ask my Secretary of the Treasury'.
Really, Romney saying that was just throwing a bone to his wife. He knows way more about the economy than his wife... he's just saying, to make sure he doesn't neglect another position, he'd turn to his wife, who spends her time gathering that position...
He was being a nice guy...
Rosen was being a drip, attacking said wife out of a feeling of superiority... It's such a vague idea anyhow "women's economics"...

Based on the last couple of decades or so worth of Secretaries of Treasury, asking the First Lady sounds pretty good. Of course, with Newt Clinton, he could ask the First, Second, and Third Ladies.
Well, Newt was never President... So, I fixed that for you.
You literally can't watch the Simpsons too much.

She has 2 children and works
Then she should realize fully the stupidity of her statement before most of the country has to tell her they disapprove. What a b*@+#.
Of course, she probably wants 5 kids, but doesn't feel she has the time for them... so, jealousy is likely seated somewhere in her words.

Nobody anywhere is backing the statement or implication that housewives do not "work." (Not even Rosen.)

Quote from Rosen since you are denying that she has apologized:

"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," said the statement by Rosen. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."

In a later interview on CNN, Rosen said she "should not have chosen words that seemed to attack Ann Romney's choice in life" and that she hoped Mrs. Romney "understands I didn't mean it personally," adding "I was trying to talk about economic issues."

Nobody anywhere is backing the statement or implication that housewives do not "work." (Not even Rosen.)

Quote from Rosen since you are denying that she has apologized:

"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," said the statement by Rosen. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."

In a later interview on CNN, Rosen said she "should not have chosen words that seemed to attack Ann Romney's choice in life" and that she hoped Mrs. Romney "understands I didn't mean it personally," adding "I was trying to talk about economic issues."
Who's denying she apologized? Not me... she apologized, I quoted that already in this thread.

She did not apologize, she denied what she said and then tried to substitute it with something that has no relation to the original comment. "I used poor wording" is not an apology, it is an excuse and avenue to quibble.

Patroklos did.

Really, Romney saying that was just throwing a bone to his wife. He knows way more about the economy than his wife... he's just saying, to make sure he doesn't neglect another position, he'd turn to his wife, who spends her time gathering that position...
He was being a nice guy...Why aren't the same standards being applied to Rosen also being applied to Romney?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/mittromney/a/Mitt-Romney-Quotes.htm

1. "Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." —Mitt Romney to a heckler at the Iowa State Fair who suggested that taxes should be raised on corporations as part of balancing the budget (August 2011)

2. "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." –Mitt Romney, using an unfortunate choice of words while advocating for consumer choice in health insurance plans (January 2012)

3. "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there." —Mitt Romney (January 2012)

4. "I'll tell you what, ten-thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?" –Mitt Romney, attempting to make a wager with Rick Perry during a Republican presidential debate to settle a disagreement about health care (December 2011)

5. "I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed." —Mitt Romney, speaking in 2011 to unemployed people in Florida. Romney's net worth is over $200 million.

6. "There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip" –Mitt Romney, attempting to identify with the problems of average folk (January 2012)

7. "[My wife] drives a couple of Cadillacs." –Mitt Romney, campaigning for president in Michigan (February 2012)

8. "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much." —Mitt Romney, who earned $374,000 in speaking fees in one year according to according to his personal financial disclosure (January 2012)

9. "PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air." —Mitt Romney in 2007, responding to criticism from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals following revelations that he had once put the family dog in a carrier and strapped it to the roof of his car during a 12-hour road trip

10. "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." –Mitt Romney (January 2012)

Nobody anywhere is backing the statement or implication that housewives do not "work." (Not even Rosen.)

Quote from Rosen since you are denying that she has apologized:

"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," said the statement by Rosen. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."

In a later interview on CNN, Rosen said she "should not have chosen words that seemed to attack Ann Romney's choice in life" and that she hoped Mrs. Romney "understands I didn't mean it personally," adding "I was trying to talk about economic issues."

Where in that did she apologize for claiming housewives don't work?

Where in there did she apologize for claiming women without jobs outside the house can't know anything significant about the economics of women?

That's what she said, and what this thread is about. I am unconcerned about her apologizing for things she never said, which she manufactured in place of what the world has recorded so she can avoid owning up to them. Obviously you have a motive for giving her that undeserved leeway, I don't have any patience for quibbling.

She was brave and honest in her original comments, but now besides being an offensive bigot she is a dishonest liar and a coward. But hey, you obviously have no qualms throwing in with such people, thats your choice.

Its clear from recent polls, however, that American women are not buying the apologism. In fact, neither are Mr. Obama, Mrs. Obama, and Axelrod (especially) which have cut her loose. So why are you defending the undefendable again?

That's so bigoted it deserves its own Useless thread. Since when does adopting children not count as raising them? I would think it's harder to raise adopted children than your own anyway. :confused:

I hear being pregnant and giving birth is really a pain.

Where in that did she apologize for claiming housewives don't work?

"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended."

There's so much rage in your post; it's kind of funny. I'm going to write a couple things but mostly I'm going to repeat myself from earlier at the end of it. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not "throwing myself in" with anyone.

Where did she state women without jobs outside the house can't know anything significant about the economics of women? Please point that out to me. Why are you allowed to interpret but we're not?

I don't care what Obama, Axelrod or Michelle think about the situation. I can think for myself.


I don't have any patience for quibbling

I'm glad you can admit that you aren't using your cognitive abilities to have a rational discussion. Thank you for confirming my earlier statement of, "sticking your fingers in your ears screaming wah wah wah can't hear you! as loud as you can."

"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended."

Thats just apologizing that there was outrage, not for the the comment she made.

There's so much rage in your post; it's kind of funny.

No rage, just an extreme entertainment at watching you dig a hole to China while tossing all your credibility out the window in a doomed attempt to excuse the inexcusable by failing to address what Rosen said at every opportunity.

I'm going to write a couple things but mostly I'm going to repeat myself from earlier at the end of it. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not "throwing myself in" with anyone.

If you want to continue to be wrong, feel free to repeat yourself. And yes, ever time you try to make excuses for Rosen you are throwing yourself in with her. Why the hell else would you make up narratives to replace the real one?

Where did she state women without jobs outside the house can't know anything significant about the economics of women? Please point that out to me. Why are you allowed to interpret but we're not?

Pardon me, I should have realized that after so many posts of making up things you had wished she had said you probably no longer have any working knowledge of what she actually said.

"'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,"

She clearly states whatever Anne Romney does (be a housewife) is not work. Whatever work is to Rosen, it can't be anything Anne Romney does.

That's EXACTLY what Rosen said Deviate, I don't have to go through the exhaustive effort to manufacture hidden meaning that you have been going through for over a day now. I just read what she said.

What do you suggest the first part meant in relation to the second? If you are not going to take it at face value? She is criticizing Mitt Romney for asking his wife advice on women economic issues, and IMMEDIATLY qualifies it with she doesn't work. Do you think that was an accident?

As for interpretation, you are the only one doing that. I am just reading what she said. You need to ask yourself WHY Rosen's comment needs interpreting. After that, ask yourself why you feel the need to interpret it. Or do you interpret everything you hear?

"Need fries with that?" "Hi, how are you?" "You look nice today!" Do you spend your waking hours "interpreting" similar self explanatory straight forward comments? Surely he wasn't asking you for fries, he was actually calling you a fatty. And he didn't really want to know how you were, he was just offering an empty social courtesy that disgusts you! And what do you mean by I look nice today? Are you saying you want to get into my pants!!! :mad:

I don't care what Obama, Axelrod or Michelle think about the situation. I can think for myself.

Apparently not. The reason those people are important is that they have no reason to cut her loose if its all just a simple understanding as you say it is. They should be doing what you are doing, but they are not.

I'm glad you can admit that you aren't using your cognitive abilities to have a rational discussion.

The only one being rational between us is me, as I am the one not making up things instead of dealing with the material given.

I will give you credit though, you have quite the imagination. Though not so skilled on the cognitive part or otherwise your excuses for her would at least make sense.

The most hilarious thing about Rosen's defenders is that even if you substitute your manufactured version of what you wish she had said, she is still offensive and wrong.

Lets pretend for a second Rosen said what you wish she had, that Anne Romney has never worked a day in her life because she is rich. That because of this she can not relate "in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," as Rosen said in her quibbling not apology. SHE IS STILL WRONG!!! I have proven backwards and forwards that her and her husband were not always rich. That when they were raising their first child not only were they not rich, they were living in a dirt cheap basement apartment while they both were in school. Do you imagine there was was a 24 hour live in nanny/private cook making baby food/a CPA on retainer planning her child's future all living in that basement with her as she fluttered about there 500 square feet fainting on chase lounges after getting the vapers from to many mint juleps first poured at 9:00 in the morning?

Even if I were to accept your alternate version of events for no good reason, your defense still makes no sense, and Rosen is still an unapologetic offensive tool.

So what is there to do now, make up another alternate reality for her comments?

Thank you for confirming my earlier statement of, "sticking your fingers in your ears screaming wah wah wah can't hear you! as loud as you can."

Well, at least the quality of your position is consistent in not offering anything of note. Congratulations?

Thats just apologizing that there was outrage, not for the the comment she made.

It's the clever form of apology which really means 'no, I wasn't wrong at all, stop being so thin-skinned'

This comment has upset me greatly. I got home last night to a messy house and dinner not made. My housewife, Lady P, had evidently spent the day raging on the internet rather than working.

Quote from Rosen since you are denying that she has apologized:It's a Rush Limbaugh level apology.

It's a Rush Limbaugh level apology.
Well, she was recycling a Rush Limbaugh talking point.

"'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,"

She clearly states whatever Anne Romney does (be a housewife) is not work. Whatever work is to Rosen, it can't be anything Anne Romney does.

That's EXACTLY what Rosen said Deviate, I don't have to go through the exhaustive effort to manufacture hidden meaning that you have been going through for over a day now. I just read what she said.
Not once does she ever say housewife. Not once is the subject of housewives ever mentioned in Anderson's question. The theme of the discussion has nothing to do with housewives. You talk about interpreting, but you seem to be seeing something that isn't there (deja vu?). Consider the subject Anderson is talking about, what the discussion is about, the words Anderson uses, and how she responds in the same context. Look at all the highlighted words relating to the economy, jobs, and financial matters:

ANDERSON COOPER: Hilary, to the Romney camp's point ... they're focusing on the economy, and that's what women overwhelmingly say they really care about in poll after poll. Whether it's a typical pattern or not, women are seeing jobs come back much more slowly than men are.

Is there anything really wrong, then, with reaching out to women on an issue that they care about, on the economy?

HILARY ROSEN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first, can we just get rid of this word "war" on women? The Obama campaign does not use it. President Obama does not use it. This is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they're actually the one spreading it.

With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately, women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like. But there's -- but he doesn't connect on that issue either.

What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, "Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing."

Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and how do we -- why we worry about their future.

So I think it's -- yes, it's about these positions and, yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions, but there's something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. Because he seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women. And I think that comes across. And I think that that's going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn't really see us as equal.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/apr/13/context-hilary-rosens-comment-ann-romney-never-wor/

It was clear as a bell to me when I watched the video that what Rosen was asserting was that Ann Romney wasn't qualified to advise on jobs, since she had never had one. That's a valid criticism. Do people usually seek sex advice from virgins? It's perfectly clear that the "work" she was referring to was "jobs", as in, "gainful employment", since that was the subject of the question Anderson asked. Your fixation on her saying housewives, when she never did, is bizarre.

I think this issue is as trivial as the issue of what Santorum really meant with his "nig..." comment. I'm just baffled by your ardent fixation on something that was never said or implied.

Are you arguing just to argue?

So wait, apparently all that qualifies you as a housewife is that you actually have kids?

Flying Pig, do you think the Queen qualifies as a housewife?

I'm just surprised they didn't strap a maid to the top of the car to take care of the dog. The whole episode reminds me of National Lampoon Vacation more than anything else.

Republicans once again scramble for the fainting couches after their delicate sensibilities were offended by something someone didn't actually say.

News at eleven.

Ann Romney has never worked a paying job in her life. That's truth. She has been married to Mitt Romney for over 20 years, and the whole time lived a life of wealth and privilege. Somehow I doubt that even raising her children was so difficult, considering that there would've been plenty of money available for nannies.

10. "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." –Mitt Romney (January 2012)
Thanks for reminding me of this gem :goodjob:

Ann Romney has never worked a paying job in her life. That's truth. She has been married to Mitt Romney for over 20 years, and the whole time lived a life of wealth and privilege. Somehow I doubt that even raising her children was so difficult, considering that there would've been plenty of money available for nannies.

Indeed. The issue isn't that being a housewife doesn't contribute to the economy, but that nearly all women have worked before they find a husband and get married - the fact that Ann Romney hasn't needed to makes her vastly different to most women, and so puts her authority to speak for the average American woman into a fair bit of question.

Adivce for some in this thread: claiming something is out of context without demonstrating so does not a position make.

Yes it does.

Adivce for some in this thread: claiming something is out of context without demonstrating so does not a position make.
Nor does it make for much of a posting history.

1.) There is no out of context analysis here. What Rosen said was extremely specific, its a normal extreme feminist position to call any women who chooses a domestic calling an Uncle Tom. We just don't hear them be so honest about it at this level. Her honsesty, despite the dishonesty of her defenders, is quite refreshing actually.


I agree. All I here about Feminism over here is the "empowerment of woman" and giving her the tools with which to carry out her destiny; yet if a woman goes down the "homemaker" route there is always a kinda toxic snideyness about it from the "sisterhood" and feminists. Which in my mind is the exact opposite to what feminism should be, the freedom to do whatever you please (within the law) and minus the peer pressure from feminists who think your a lesser person for not pursuing a career.

I agree. All I here about Feminism over here is the "empowerment of woman" and giving her the tools with which to carry out her destiny; yet if a woman goes down the "homemaker" route there is always a kinda toxic snideyness about it from the "sisterhood" and feminists. Which in my mind is the exact opposite to what feminism should be, the freedom to do whatever you please (within the law) and minus the peer pressure from feminists who think your a lesser person for not pursuing a career.

Which is completely missing the point of the comment anyway. But of course we should expect no more from people who only wish to air their political talking points about "liberals" or "feminists".

I'm just surprised they didn't strap a maid to the top of the car to take care of the dog. The whole episode reminds me of National Lampoon Vacation more than anything else.
They prolly did tie her to the bumper, but being the lazy liberal that she was, she couldn't chose not to keep up.

Typical.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-rejects-rosens-comments-on-ann-romney/

I am going with the president on this one. I can understand what she was trying to say, but at the end of the day she was wrong for what she said.

What a misleading headline since Rosen was clearly not dissing moms. And Obama's comments were really directed at those who do.

I guess this is another example of the "leftist media".

And here I thought "leftist media" meant "media that doesn't reflect my far right views".

So it really means "I have terrible reading comprehension and will believe other people's misinterpretations"?

Romney's wife is a good example of how pulling one's self up by one's brastraps really works.

Here's an interesting clip from Romney back in early January talking about requiring women who receive public assistance to have a job. (I'll ignore the irony inherent in that).

He brings up the point that he'd like to see women - even with a kid as young as 2 - returning to the work force so that their child will learn the dignity of having a job. In order to facilitate this he claims that, as governor, he wanted to establish state-financed daycare for women who needed it. Personally I would LOVE to see that, and I think it's shameful the government doesn't already provide a minimum amount of daycare assistance to any family that asks for it.

I don't think he really believes that his wife failed to show their kids the dignity of employment by choosing to stay home. I also think a lot of women and men would prefer to stay home with their children if financial considerations didn't render that impossible. Whenever I hear Romeny speak, all I hear is white male privilege and a complete disconnect with the problems that 50-60% of the households in America face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5HFA90DjupI

Link fixed

5HFA90DjupI

^^ thanks - I thought it was my computer not displaying correctly.

When you use the YouTube button here when posting, you need to eliminate everything but the specific video code. Thus...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HFA90DjupI

should become...

5HFA90DjupI

That's what you need to select, so your end result will look like this (without the spaces):

[ YOUTUBE ] 5HFA90DjupI [ /YOUTUBE ]

You can always Preview Post to make sure your link works before posting.

Do you think that being a parent is very difficult no matter what your circumstances? Do you think it is even harder for someone from a more or less deprived background, with limited education, and living in an inner city area?

Ann Romney has never worked a paying job in her life. That's truth. She has been married to Mitt Romney for over 20 years, and the whole time lived a life of wealth and privilege. Somehow I doubt that even raising her children was so difficult, considering that there would've been plenty of money available for nannies.

Except I proved several times in this thread that your assumption about their lives is completely wrong. It says something about Rosen's defenders when they obviously have put no effort into verifying the claims they pretend she made.

@Lord Gay - Thank you! I had no idea that's how it worked.

@Borachio - Being a parent is more difficult than not being a parent, but money solves thousands of problems. Not all, of course. I think if I had to choose between having assistance in child-rearing from Family or Money, I'd choose Family. I don't assume everyone would choose the way I do.

In my own extended family I see examples from all places on the spectrum:

- Working Single Mother with 1 child, qualifies for welfare assistance, home heating assistance, food assistance, state-subsidized child care assistance.

- Married work-at-home mother of 1 child, only qualify for home heating assistance. Retired Mother & Father live next door (that's tremendously helpful.)

- Professional Married couple, 1 child, don't qualify for any assistance. These guys have it the toughest that I can see. They earn too much to get state aid, but not enough for it to be easy at all. The husband's income basically goes to child care.

- Married family of 5 doing charity work in Peru. No clue how they do it. They're always broke, but among the happiest people I know. Their kids are just amazing. I know that their grandparents pay for round-trip airfare 2x a year. But I'm pretty sure that's the limit of the financial assistance.

-Married stay-at-home mother of 5. Husband works in Finance. Big house, bigger SUV's, they'll never want for anything financially. Not located super close to family, so she's doing just about all of the work on her own. They're awesome parents, they have really good kids - my wife and I use them as a model for how we hope to raise our kids.

At either end of the spectrum I see families that have it easy in one way but tough in the other. Not all of these are due to the choices the people make. I suppose the Working Single Mother could have chosen an abortion, the richest family on the list can't live any closer to the grandparents due to commuting concerns - he already spends about 75 minutes commuting each way.

Yes, it's tough for everyone. But it's much harder to be poor without family or state support than rich without family or state support.

And I really think Rosen's point still stands: I doubt Ann Romney knows much about what the vast majority of women face in terms of economic issues.

Thats just apologizing that there was outrage, not for the the comment she made.

You are once again interpreting. Whether you think it was a good apology or not, she did in fact apologize.

She clearly states whatever Anne Romney does (be a housewife) is not work. Whatever work is to Rosen, it can't be anything Anne Romney does. That's EXACTLY what Rosen said Deviate, I don't have to go through the exhaustive effort to manufacture hidden meaning that you have been going through for over a day now. I just read what she said.

No one is who is actually interested in a rational discussion cares. No one is defending her exact literal words in that one sentence. We are (or were; things have moved on since my last post) discussing the bigger picture. (Whether you want to or not.) Also, she didn't say housewife.

She is criticizing Mitt Romney for asking his wife advice on women economic issues

No, she is criticizing Mitt for PRIMARILY getting his advice on women's economic issues.

Or do you interpret everything you hear?

Yes, I do. So do you. So does everyone else.

"Need fries with that?" "Hi, how are you?" "You look nice today!" Do you spend your waking hours "interpreting" similar self explanatory straight forward comments? Surely he wasn't asking you for fries, he was actually calling you a fatty. And he didn't really want to know how you were, he was just offering an empty social courtesy that disgusts you! And what do you mean by I look nice today? Are you saying you want to get into my pants!!!

I'll play sure. If food service employees' conversations suddenly become the center of national attention I'll be more than happy to interpret what they're saying.


cut her loose

Could you please prove to me that she was in the employment of the Obama administration?

The most hilarious thing about Rosen's defenders is that even if you substitute your manufactured version of what you wish she had said, she is still offensive and wrong.

Thank you finally. Let's talk about this part. Please address our points...

Lets pretend for a second Rosen said what you wish she had, that Anne Romney has never worked a day in her life because she is rich.

...and I thought we were going somewhere. I haven't stated this.

Regarding the "she wasn't super rich once upon a time" comments...

And? Why does that matter? Are you suggesting that economic policy should be driven by facts relevant 20+ years ago?

You are once again interpreting. Whether you think it was a good apology or not, she did in fact apologize.

Sorry Deviate, that is not an interpretation, that is a simple fact. She did not apologize for her comment. If you disagree, quote where she did.

No one is who is actually interested in a rational discussion cares. No one is defending her exact literal words in that one sentence. We are (or were; things have moved on since my last post) discussing the bigger picture. (Whether you want to or not.) Also, she didn't say housewife.

I am the one interested in rational discussion, as well as the one being rational. Again, we all know you want to move on to the "bigger issue" because despite your outward excuses there is no way you can't recognize what a stinker Rosen tossed in your lap.

No, she is criticizing Mitt for PRIMARILY getting his advice on women's economic issues.

Really? did she say "primarily" in her quote from that interview?

Yes, I do. So do you. So does everyone else.

No, they don't. No, you don't. Well, maybe you do, but that's a choice on your part and we have already demonstrated how ridiculous that choice of yours can turn out.

I'll play sure. If food service employees' conversations suddenly become the center of national attention I'll be more than happy to interpret what they're saying.

Than you for demonstrating how ridiculous your idea about interpretation is.

Could you please prove to me that she was in the employment of the Obama administration?

Did I claim she was?

Thank you finally. Let's talk about this part. Please address our points...
...and I thought we were going somewhere. I haven't stated this.

To your imaginary workd where Rosen says things she never actually said? Sorry, that can't happen because the only one who has access to your imagination is you.

Regarding the "she wasn't super rich once upon a time" comments...

And? Why does that matter? Are you suggesting that economic policy should be driven by facts relevant 20+ years ago?

This may be a surprise to you, but most 63 year old women are not raising rug rats. You and Rosen are the ones trying to discuss the economics of child rearing, old people usually did that some time ago. But its good of you to actually admit she raised her children similarly to other Americans, your compatriots are not so honest.

So now that we have invalidated your wealth and age alternate reality defenses for Rosen, where are you going to turn to next?

And I really think Rosen's point still stands: I doubt Ann Romney knows much about what the vast majority of women face in terms of economic issues.That can also be said about Mitt and much of the Republican Party. This is even true for many of the women who actually "work":

Bachmann: Stay-at-Home Moms Understand Economy Better Than Husbands (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/bachmann-stay-at-home-moms-understand-economy-better-than-husbands/)

Bachmann told NBC’s David Gregory that not only was Ann Romney qualified, as a stay-at-home mom, to advise her husband about the economy, but she may actually have a better understanding of a family’s economic problems than her husband.

“One thing I know is when women are home full-time they have a better pulse on the economy than probably their husband has,” Bachmann said, noting that because those moms are usually the family member that buys groceries and gets gas, they are the first to notice rising prices.So there you have it. If your maid does the shopping or you buy gas for your two Cadillacs, you likely know more about the economy than your husband does.

“On every measure women’s lives are worse under President Obama than they would be under Mitt Romney as president of the United States,” Bachmann said.Most women appear to disagree with this premise. Let's hope the Republican Party candidates continue to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to issues which directly affect women.

@Patroklos, I'm too tired of repeating myself. Keep trolling this thread.

Thats an ironic comment, given our discussion of Rosen's non apology.

*** Giddy over the Rosen flap: At the fundraiser, Haake adds, both Romney and his wife Ann remained absolutely giddy about last week’s Hilary Rosen flap. "It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother, and that was really a defining moment, and I loved it," Ann Romney said. The candidate went further, calling the episode a "gift" that allowed his campaign to show contrast with Democrats in the general election's first week. But while Romney said last week that “all moms are working moms,” that doesn’t apply to mothers who are welfare recipients, the Boston Globe says. Romney said at a Jan. 4 campaign stop in Manchester, N.H.: “Even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work,” Romney describing his position as Massachusetts governor. “And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11225309-first-thoughts-romneys-own-hot-mic-moment?lite


Tell me this is not a fake controversy. Go on, I dare you.

I am shocked that Romney called his wife undignified.

Wow, so Romney thinks Romney doesn't work? Must be awkward around the dinner table.

The Daily Show had a field day with this yesterday:

Mitt Needs Moms - Motherhood Is Hard (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/mitt-needs-moms---motherhood-is-hard)

Ann Romney:

My career choice was to be a mother. And I think all of us need to know that we need to respect choices that women make.

Jon Stewart:

Are you not entertained? Hillary Rosen just made the Republican Party pro-choice! Cats are dogs! Black is white! ... I don't know what is going on. Mitt Romney can now campaign on motherhood being hard. Probably the only issue he hasn't flip-flopped on. I mean it's not like anybody is going to dig up an old clip of Romney saying just the opposite o motherhood being hard work.

Really? 3 months ago?

Mitt Romney:

When I was governor, 85% of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. And I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, or instance, even if you have a child 2 years of age you need to go to work. It would cost the state more to provide that day-care. But I think the individuals need the dignity of work.

Jon Stewart:

Oh my god! I think Mitt Romney just said his own wife has no dignity! You know what they did to Hillary Rosen! Run man!

Tell me this is not a fake controversy. Go on, I dare you.

I didn't think so.

Stupid thread, stupid media. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that someone who has never done a days work in her life - because she has (presumably) a privileged background and married a millionaire - has no grasp of 'normal' family economics, how can she?

Oh she's a mum so she has 'worked' (probably with a significant amount of hired help of one kind or another) but she has not got a background that gives her any appreciation of how most families have to budget economically. Rosen's actual point is in no way contradicted by the fact Ann Romney is a serial parent.

As often and as quickly as Mitt Romney likes to change positions, the conception process must have been a lot of work.

Now that made me lol :D

Oh she's a mum so she has 'worked' (probably with a significant amount of hired help of one kind or another) but she has not got a background that gives her any appreciation of how most families have to budget economically. Rosen's actual point is in no way contradicted by the fact Ann Romney is a serial parent.

And yet another Rosen apologist demonstrates they know nothing about the person being criticized (while defending that criticism) or have read the thread.

Yeah, we know how she struggled early on living in a basement apartment paid for by her in-laws.

There's that filthy word 'apologist' again. Perhaps you can explain to me why I should believe that the wife of a millionaire who 'never had to work a day in her life' has a good grounding in the economic realities that I deal with on a daily basis?

I already did explain it. The beauty of a message board is that the conversation prior to your arrival is available for you to read before you stumble into it making observations that have already been offered and proven wrong and asking for explainations that have already been given.

Or how about you try googling the people in question before commenting about them in the first place?

I googled Santorum and all I got was the definition of Patroklos.

Plainly unfunny straight out attacks aren't acceptable in this forum. If you're going to troll, keep it below the radar or at least make it clever, rather than mean-spirited.

And yet another Rosen apologist demonstrates they know nothing about the person being criticized (while defending that criticism) or have read the thread.

You have read Ann Statement about her not having any financial problems as well as an assistant house keeper ?

I already did explain it. The beauty of a message board is that the conversation prior to your arrival is available for you to read before you stumble into it making observations that have already been offered and proven wrong and asking for explainations that have already been given.
It's funny that you say that because apparently you think that repeating your position constitutes a counterargument.

Yeah, we know how she struggled early on living in a basement apartment paid for by her in-laws.
Don't forget how they had to sell their stocks to make ends meet. Actually, that's all they had to do.

You have read Ann Statement about her not having any financial problems as well as an assistant house keeper ?

No, care to quote and source them for me? And when?

My grandparents have an assistant housekeeper now in their old age after successfully investing in retirement. He was a telephone pole repairman and she was a seamstress.

It's funny that you say that because apparently you think that repeating your position constitutes a counterargument.

What's funny is that you consider things such as:

I googled Santorum and all I got was the definition of Patroklos.

Don't forget how they had to sell their stocks to make ends meet. Actually, that's all they had to do.

...to be counterarguments. Its not my fault all your rebuttals are ineffectual. That probably has something to do with you making things up out of desperation rather than looking up facts.

But rest assured, when you come up with something that in any way invalidates my position I will happily address it. As of right you and your host have failed at this miserably while at the same time scorning a family with two parents going to school while raising two children in decidedly middle class conditions. Congratulations?

The Daily Show had a field day with this yesterdaySaw this one yesterday. Together with the War on Women part.

Nice.

I already did explain it. The beauty of a message board is that the conversation prior to your arrival is available for you to read before you stumble into it making observations that have already been offered and proven wrong and asking for explainations that have already been given.

Or how about you try googling the people in question before commenting about them in the first place?You did not explain it, you said that they lived in a $75 a month basement apartment whilst at university and having their first kids. How much is that in today's money by the way, so we can properly assess if that is living well or not.

And, oh, what's this? They weren't paying for it? "her recounting of the couple's student years living off George Romney's stock and loans made her seem privileged and naïve". On what exactly are you basing your asssertion that this couple had any sort of normal experience? I had to take out a load of bloody great loans to do my degree and live without working for 3 years, lots of my friends had to work part time to make ends meet, what did the Romney's do? Nothing.

What's the basis for any assertion that they understand normal family budgeting or economics when they didn't even pay the rent during the time you hold up as a shining example of their period of grounding?

The basis is that Romney is a republican. So he must be defended. The basis is that that woman from the OP is a democrat. So context doesn't matter. (Context by the way which makes the comment just bollocks, instead of bollocks and anti-women)

The basis is partisan.

*** Giddy over the Rosen flap: At the fundraiser, Haake adds, both Romney and his wife Ann remained absolutely giddy about last week’s Hilary Rosen flap. "It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother, and that was really a defining moment, and I loved it," Ann Romney said. The candidate went further, calling the episode a "gift" that allowed his campaign to show contrast with Democrats in the general election's first week. But while Romney said last week that “all moms are working moms,” that doesn’t apply to mothers who are welfare recipients, the Boston Globe says. Romney said at a Jan. 4 campaign stop in Manchester, N.H.: “Even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work,” Romney describing his position as Massachusetts governor. “And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11225309-first-thoughts-romneys-own-hot-mic-moment?lite


Tell me this is not a fake controversy. Go on, I dare you.

I’m still waiting for someone to take me up on this offer.

You did not explain it, you said that they lived in a $75 a month basement apartment whilst at university and having their first kids. How much is that in today's money by the way, so we can properly assess if that is living well or not.

Again, why are YOU not doing this research before coming in slinging sludge everywhere?

$75.00 in 1970 is equivalent to $448.95 today.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

The national average for a two bedroom apartment you ask?

$1,000.00 per month.

The average rent for a two bedroom apartment in Cambridge (where Harvard is, Boston itself is more expensive) you ask?

$1,725.00 per month.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0711/Renting-In-The-Most-Expensive-Cities-What-You-Get.aspx#axzz1sUitvS9b

http://www.rent.com/rentals/massachusetts/

So the Romneys were living in an apartment that was 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a normal apartment. Unless his dad plated the thing in platinum or maybe added diamond door knobs (as likely as any other fabrication you are about to invent to excuse more vitriol) even if it was paid for it was not beyond the scope of what many other parents from all strata of society do for their kids at college.

Or in other words, far lower than anything I have paid for an apartment (note, for the whole apartment, not as a roommate in a shared apartment). And this was in New England, a high cost of living area.

So not that it required any proof, but your asinine accusations that they were somehow far above the plane of normal American existence is obviously false.

Not that the Romney's need to be impoverished or even middle class to have to grapple with day to day economic problems either mind you, because the vast majority of Americans are NOT wallowing in poverty.

And, oh, what's this? They weren't paying for it? "her recounting of the couple's student years living off George Romney's stock and loans made her seem privileged and naïve".

1.) Source?
2.) That's not even a direct quote, who said it?

And this proves what? Do you think that they were the only college kids who got help from their parents during college if that's the case? Or help with their expenses when striking out on their own. You pretty much just disqualified nearly every American from being able to comment on the economics of women. Congratulations?

Out of curiosity, did your parents help you out at all with college? Living expenses while in college?

We get what your strategy is, to try and paint them as some top hat wearing robber barons with monocles lighting fine cigars with hundreds while making their help fight to the death for their amusement. Maybe they took in an Eddie Murphy look alike into their home to conduct social experiments on. Unfortunately for you, reality at every turn frustrates your attempts.

On what exactly are you basing your asssertion that this couple had any sort of normal experience?

The reality of their higher education, early professional, and most importantly family starting years.

I had to take out a load of bloody great loans to do my degree and live without working for 3 years, lots of my friends had to work part time to make ends meet, what did the Romney's do? Nothing.

Do you imagine your experience is at all typical? You think your problems are everyone's problems? Guess what, I made it through college without crippling loans and with a job on the back end. Most Americans alive (and graduating) today did the same. You are not the norm, even if there are more of you than there used to be.

So what is your point, that anyone who doesn't have outrageous student loans and found a job out of college is some high born blue blood that can't understand economics as well as you?

And save me your Mitt Romney did nothing class envy BS. Did you graduate with honors form Harvard? He very obviously did something to get his money (long after he started his family of course). Maybe you will one day too. And when you do, I won't hate you for it in the same vein you seem to hate others.

What's the basis for any assertion that they understand normal family budgeting or economics when they didn't even pay the rent during the time you hold up as a shining example of their period of grounding?

1.) Your rent claims are unattested.
2.) Even then, they don't even matter, as I explained above.

So where is your cutoff for when REAL Americans stop being in touch?

We can start with disqualifying anyone who gets assistance with their housing, not that you have shown the Romney's did. We already know that people having their housing taken care of by their parents at any point in their lives don't count according to you, so that means all those poor single moms living in their parents house are irrelevant. How about people who have their housing paid for by the government? How can they possibly know about normal family budgeting or economics when they don't even pay their own rent!

But hey, why stop there. You just made me calcuate their current rent value to make sure they were not "living well," because obviously anyone living well knows nothing about family economics, right? So what now, are you going to disqualify anyone paying rent over the national average to be out of touch with normal family economics?

I hear some families have dogs. Can you imagine that, families with money waste it on animals! Some even have TWO! Those people are obviously out of touch with reality. I mean, "I had to take out a load of bloody great loans to do my degree and live without working for 3 years" and these penthouse living trust fund babies waste money on DOGS!

Patroklos is entirely missing the point, 8 pages on.

Hillary Rosen's point is valid.

When Ann Romney claims to have a finger on the pulse of women's economic anxieties most of the nation LAUGHS IN HER FACE.

It matters not what the Romney's early post-grad living situation was.

It matters not whether or not the Romneys had hired domestic help.

It matters not that the person acting as a national voice in calling out Ann Romney has domestic hired help herself.

All that matters is that the Romneys live a wildly privileged life that the rest of us have an extremely hard time even imagining, let alone excusing when they say things like "Some of my friends are NASCAR team owners."

It's very difficult for most Americans to imagine that someone who drives a Cadillac when the first Cadillac is in the shop has any clue about our economic anxieties.

That's the point. And you've spend 8 pages missing it.

"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said on CNN. "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."

Couple of things:
Romney's wife has indeed never dealt with the kind of things she names most women have to deal with. Since the things listed are worrisome things, I'm glad she never has. You'd not wish that on anyone.

Romney doesn't actually really listen to his wife about what economic issues women face. That's just talk. I think there are a couple of economic advisers, of which some probably will be women I hope, who have a better understanding of these matters.

The irrelevant point might be valid, it's still irrelevant because it's based on the ridiculous assumption that Romney's wife has a major influence on economical suggestions Romney is making in campaign-mode. There's only one deciding factor in this period: popularity. Of course he'll dress it as if he's coming up with these things sitting at a kitchen table (*waves at Santo*) but you'd have to be a moron to believe that's how it really works.

In short, Rosen's a moron for believing Romney in that regard. But of course, Rosen is not a moron. Rosen knows damn well that's not how it works.

In short short: it's all partisan campaign stereo BS.

But it goes to 11!

Heh. It sure does!

Just like every other thing in America :)

your asinine accusations that they were somehow far above the plane of normal American existence is obviously false.I made no such accusation about them then, although I will maintain that not having to pay your own rent is obviously not a normal economic situation, perhaps you'd like to defend arguing that it is? I know a couple of guys who had everthing covered by their parents at uni and we sure thought they were lucky. Not normal.

Now I certainly would make such an accusation, as they are millionaires (and pay bugger all tax ofc).

So they have gone from a privileged economic situation to an even more privileged one. Case closed so far as I can see.
Out of curiosity, did your parents help you out at all with college? Living expenses while in college?Read my last post. I took out student loans, bank overdrafts and a graduate loan. No way could my parents help me out. Nice attempt at an ad-hom but you are miles off target Pat, I am still paying for my own education thanks for asking and expect to be doing so for a couple more decades at this rate. I also spent £10,000 of my own money, saved up in advance doing regular 70 hour weeks in overtime. Ann Romney 'never worked a day in her life' - if you want to make comparisons.

You got some sort of scholarship from the military I believe...?
1.) Source?You may recall linking the Ann Romney page on wiki. It's right there.

Ann Romney has never worked, has never had to work and has no personal experience of what 'real life' means for the majority of people. She is a particularly bad source of economic empathy for her millionaire husband.

What's funny is that you consider things such as:
I don't; but I guess soon you'll correct me that I'm too thick to realize that I did :mischief:

I can't blame them for stopping to discuss considering your condescending attitude.

Its not my fault all your rebuttals are ineffectual.
So someone else put your fingers into your ears?

That probably has something to do with you making things up out of desperation rather than looking up facts.
Your "arguments" hardly make anyone desperate.

I don't; but I guess soon you'll correct me that I'm too thick to realize that I did

He confused you with me. I found it pretty funny :D

Actually, I missed this bit:You are not the norm, even if there are more of you than there used to be.

So what is your point, that anyone who doesn't have outrageous student loans and found a job out of college is some high born blue blood that can't understand economics as well as you? In the UK it is totally normal to take out every form of loan that I had to in order to get through your university years, so yes I am pretty normal in the UK. People who have their parents cover it all are very much the exception.

To think I worked my way through school. All I had to do was sell a couple of stocks given to me by my parents.

Patroklos is entirely missing the point, 8 pages on.

Hillary Rosen's point is valid.

When Ann Romney claims to have a finger on the pulse of women's economic anxieties most of the nation LAUGHS IN HER FACE.

It matters not what the Romney's early post-grad living situation was.

It matters not whether or not the Romneys had hired domestic help.

It matters not that the person acting as a national voice in calling out Ann Romney has domestic hired help herself.

All that matters is that the Romneys live a wildly privileged life that the rest of us have an extremely hard time even imagining, let alone excusing when they say things like "Some of my friends are NASCAR team owners."

It's very difficult for most Americans to imagine that someone who drives a Cadillac when the first Cadillac is in the shop has any clue about our economic anxieties.

That's the point. And you've spend 8 pages missing it.
You talk about missing the point... that's rich.
Rosen's point would be maybe somewhat valid in a mysoginistic society where you were incapable of relating to other people without literally walking in their shoes... IF... Romney's comment about her being the "primary" source for him was actually accurate. He was throwing his wife a bone, to appeal to women, sure.

Anyhow, I guess Rosen decided it wasn't valid when she apologized, so it is funny to see you still defend it, 8 pages later.

You talk about missing the point... that's rich.
Rosen's point would be maybe somewhat valid in a mysoginistic society where you were incapable of relating to other people without literally walking in their shoes... IF... Romney's comment about her being the "primary" source for him was actually accurate. He was throwing his wife a bone, to appeal to women, sure.

Anyhow, I guess Rosen decided it wasn't valid when she apologized, so it is funny to see you still defend it, 8 pages later.

Yeah, funny how people can still be so wrong after 8 pages.

Seems reasonable in the context. The context being 'the kinds of economics issues the majority of women in [the USA] are facing' such as 'How do we feed our kids' and 'how do we send [our kids] to school'. In that context, the relevant understanding of 'working' is not as the antonym of 'idle' but as having to productively engage in the market economy in order to satisfy your families basic needs. Given this understanding of 'work' (and it is surely blinkered to interpret it in a different way) the fact that Mr. Romney's wife has not worked a day in her life (if it is a fact) is relevant to her understanding of these issues. She will not have the first-person acquaintance with these issues that a working woman has.

I think precisely what I say. From an economic perspective, Mrs. Romney seems to have lived a fairly comfortable life. She has never had to work to support herself or her family. Again, by 'work' here I mean 'remunerated employment'.

Consequently, she cannot possibly have the first-person understanding of what being in that situation is like. First-person understanding is often quite important; the direct acquaintance with a condition or event often has far more effect on a person than an indirect acquaintance with that condition or event. The direct and personal acquaintance with economic stress is likely to give one a more lively impression of the suffering caused by such stress. Bringing up this point, as Mz. Rosen is doing, is not 'bigotry' or 'bad taste' as you believe. This is especially so when, according to Mz. Rosen, Mr. Romney has stated that he is getting his appreciation of such issues from his wife. Bringing up this point is not, in my opinion, outside the realms of acceptable political discourse (and if it is, absolutely no discourse on personal experience is acceptable).

So that's what I mean. What I do not mean is that first-person understanding is necassary or sufficient to understanding the issues in question (and I said nothing that can be interpreted as implying such). Someone can gain a full and comprehensive appreciation for a difficulty without ever having experienced said difficulty. But it is not 'retarded' to be less receptive to someone who claims such an appreciation without first-person experience, especially in lieu of other evidence. To whit, if I told a soldier that I understood precisely what he had felt in the midst of active combat, it would not be odd for him to ask 'How so? You have never been in combat!' (and perhaps I could adequately reply, if I had interviewed many such soldiers and done extensive research). Mz. Rosen's remarks are, whilst not particularly incisive, valid.

My mistake Aelf, I didn't realize you had appointed Lovett the final arbiter in this case, as you like to determine who has the final say in many issues.
Thanks. :goodjob:

How about addressing the good arguments presented rather give this pathetic response?

How about addressing the good arguments presented rather give this pathetic response?
How about coming up with your own arguments, and not failing to realize that post has been addressed in the previous 8 pages...
:goodnight:

Oh, you mean your crappy response in post #22? That was quite handily refuted in #31, and I haven't seen a peep from you about those points since then.

And I didn't realise that having your own argument matters in deciding what is valid or invalid.

No, only you decide what is valid... everyone here knows that. Have fun with that.

Handbags at 20 paces!

How about acknowledging that starting from Rosen's comment up to the feigned indignation as a response it's all partisan campaign bs? If we can agree on that little piece of real estate as common ground we can move forward from there.

Handbags at 20 paces!

How about acknowledging that starting from Rosen's comment up to the feigned indignation as a response it's all partisan campaign bs? If we can agree on that little piece of real estate as common ground we can move forward from there.
Absolutely... Rosen was being a jerk, and the repubs did blow it out of proportion, but it does beg the issue... imagine if a repub had said this, what with the "war on women" chanting going on...

I get sick of double standards... that was pretty much my point, though I didn't come out and say it in the OP.

Absolutely... Rosen was being a jerk, and the repubs did blow it out of proportion, but it does beg the issue... imagine if a repub had said thisNothing would be different. Labels would be switched.

And about "wars on ...", happy holidays!

Nothing would be different. Labels would be switched.

And about "wars on ...", happy holidays!
The volume would be QUITE louder... trust me.

Anyhow, the repubs definitely overblew the issue... Rosen is a hack, big deal... it's lame when either side picks some comment from one person and tries to make that whole party look bad... as if they needed help looking bad that we have to reach so far as that!

The volume would be QUITE louder... trust me.Yeah, I can see you don't like double standards. ;)

In fairness, I posted my article before the Repubs decided to jump on it... or, maybe they had, and I just didn't know about it because I don't really follow their media spin factory...

Handbags at 20 paces!

I don't own one, I'm afraid. Could you lend me yours?