Originally Posted by ASB65

I suppose this comment might belong on the culture thread wars, but frankly that thread is scary to me. So I'm staying completely away from it.

I just caught Hillary Rosen's comment about how Ann Romney doesn't know anything about economic issues because she is a stay at home mom has never worked outside of the home. Well, Hillary, you are on my shit list today. This is a WTF moment for me. I, along with every other stay at home mother I know, handle on all the finances in the household. We are the ones who do the shopping, pay the bills and manage the household budget. As a matter of fact, when filling out information which requires my husband to state his earnings, he has to ask me how much he makes. I also take care of our taxes. I don't think my husband has even seen tax return in 5 years. So Hillary Rosen, open mouth and insert foot...And people wonder why some people see Democrats as elitist. Hillary Rosen fits that category today. She came off as acting superior to stay at moms in her snotty comments.

However, that being said, I don't think this will hurt Obama as some people on the news are suggesting. He wasn't the one that said it. And I would hope that Obama or someone in his staff have gotten to her and told her shut her damn mouth.

It may be fair to say that as the someone who married young into money, Ann Romney probably doesn't understand the pressures facing middle- and lower-income families. This is irrespective of whether she's ever been part of the paid labor force. If she had worked as, say a curator of an art museum or a lawyer at a fancy law firm, the same criticism would apply.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Ms. Rosen has a history of being somewhat of a loose cannon.

I really love this quote from the article:

“Reviled by college kids, music fans, and more than a few recording artists for the RIAA's role in forcing the shutdown of Napster, Rosen is seen as the embodiment of a venal corporate culture hurtling toward obsolescence,” Bai wrote.

Now maybe she can take this particular brand of divisive and judgmental feminism to obsolescence, as well!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

It may be fair to say that as the someone who married young into money, Ann Romney probably doesn't understand the pressures facing middle- and lower-income families. This is irrespective of whether she's ever been part of the paid labor force. If she had worked as, say a curator of an art museum or a lawyer at a fancy law firm, the same criticism would apply.

As I was watching the replay of her conversation with Anderson Cooper, I had initially thought Rosen was trying to make the point that Ann Romney didn't understand economic issues because she is rich, but that's not what Rosen said. Rosen went to talk about how it's just working women who understand the struggle of having to worry about how to feed their kids. And that's when I went, "Huh?" Every stay at home mother that I know is very involved with the family finances and plenty of us have had the experience of walking the floor at night, worrying over money or expenses at one time or another. I guess the thing that insulted me personally, was not the she was implying that stay at home mom's sit around eating bon bons, (like others have accused SAHM from time to time) but the fact that SAHM are clueless about finances because they don't work...But the point/counterpoint people have turned this into about an argument about whether or not SAHMs work as hard working moms. (And they do, but that's beside the point). My point is that just because you don't work outside the home, doesn't mean you are an idiot and don't understand financial struggle.

And I do believe that Ann Romney was raised in a middle class family, so Rosen got it wrong all the way around. Now I will say that I doubt Mitt understands the struggles of poor or working class families since he was born with a silver in his mouth and probably hasn't spent a lot of time or hung out with your typical American family.

For a Democratic "strategist" Hillary Rosen really put her foot in it. I don't blame Team Romney for jumping all over this. Not that it's going to make Romney appear less rich or anything. Unlike you do, Amy, I doubt Ann Romney handled all the finances. The Romneys have people to do that for them. That's not to say she didn't handle her household. Plus, as the wife of a bigwig business guy and politician, she had to do a hell of a lot of schmoozing. That's work!

My SAH mom sister handled all the bills, too. When my brother-in-law started making a lot of money, she hired a cleaning person behind his back. He thought she should be doing it all. My sister was only a slightly better housekeeper than I am. My BIL liked the house a certain way and that was not how my sister wanted to spend her time, as she had little kids. He didn't know anything about it until I told him this year. He thought it was hilarious.

I think Barbara Morrill captures it perfectly -

Well, kudos to you, Ann. You made a choice. Granted, it was a choice that most mothers don't have since they don't have the luxury of a couple of hundred million dollars to fall back on, but props to you because being a stay-at-home mom is hard work. I know that because I was one.

But now, back to the real War on Women, where Mitt Romney is leading the charge against basic health care for women, the economic health of women, jobs for women, educational opportunities for women ... and let's shelve the phony outrage.

- American women tend to be pretty smart; this trumped-up BS will be forgotten by tomorrow; replaced by the real attack on women by the Right's wingnuts - they can't help themselves.

I just can't believe Ann's interview on Fox - she basically could have been a spokesperson from Planned Parenthood with her -

"We need to respect choices that women make"

- that must have a more than a few on the Right thinking their heads are going to explode.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I suppose this comment might belong on the culture thread wars, but frankly that thread is scary to me. So I'm staying completely away from it.

I just caught Hillary Rosen's comment about how Ann Romney doesn't know anything about economic issues because she is a stay at home mom has never worked outside of the home. Well, Hillary, you are on my shit list today. This is a WTF moment for me. I, along with every other stay at home mother I know, handle on all the finances in the household. We are the ones who do the shopping, pay the bills and manage the household budget. As a matter of fact, when filling out information which requires my husband to state his earnings, he has to ask me how much he makes. I also take care of our taxes. I don't think my husband has even seen tax return in 5 years. So Hillary Rosen, open mouth and insert foot...And people wonder why some people see Democrats as elitist. Hillary Rosen fits that category today. She came off as acting superior to stay at moms in her snotty comments.

However, that being said, I don't think this will hurt Obama as some people on the news are suggesting. He wasn't the one that said it. And I would hope that Obama or someone in his staff have gotten to her and told her shut her damn mouth.

I just have to ask; why do you care? I mean it's not like Hillary Rosen has actually ever worked a day in her life either. I would challenge you to do a little research on her. She's been a parasite for most of her adult life.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I just have to ask; why do you care? I mean it's not like Hillary Rosen has actually ever worked a day in her life either. I would challenge you to do a little research on her. She's been a parasite for most of her adult life.

I don't know why I cared. It just annoyed me, I guess. Why does anyone care when politicians or political pundits make boneheaded statements? I guess sometimes things just a nerve with people. This entire thread is filled with people making comments about something some politicians or media person said.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I don't know why I cared. It just annoyed me, I guess. Why does anyone care when politicians or political pundits make boneheaded statements? I guess sometimes things just a nerve with people. This entire thread is filled with people making comments about something some politicians or media person said.

FWIW, if I were you, I would have felt insulted by her comments too.

It was the dumbest thing ever to come out of an Obama campaign, for President at least. Given that she's a relatively minor figure (Rosen), it's hard to believe it will have a lot of legs, but. . .really. .. dumb beyond belief. And genuinely offensive.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It was the dumbest thing ever to come out of an Obama campaign, for President at least. Given that she's a relatively minor figure (Rosen), it's hard to believe it will have a lot of legs, but. . .really. .. dumb beyond belief. And genuinely offensive.

Minor figure, hence not a lot of legs? In this campaign? This is a year in which someone jumps on every word out of anybody's mouth, even if it's the housekeeper's assistant's second cousin who said it. I was about to say the partisans would do this even if it were Jesus Christ Himself --- and then remembered what the Powers That Be did to HIM!

Just prior to the Rosen episode, there was the Romney camp claim of -

"92.3 percent of job losses during Obama’s presidency were experienced by women.."

- and just before Rosen, the Press was beginning to focus on the falsehood of that claim. Krugman, who usually bashes the Press for not being critical of political claims relevant to the economy, had a column offering his surprise that the Press was focusing on Romney's mendacity of his claim -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...s-the-message/

The Mendacity Is The Message
Here’s the bad news: Mitt Romney’s campaign is setting new standards in serial dishonesty. Really. He makes Bush look like a font of truth and accuracy.

Here’s the good news: reporters seem to have noticed, and — be still my beating heart — we’re starting to see reports that actually point out the distortions, rather than saying that “some Democrats” say that he isn’t being honest.

It was particularly gratifying to see the response to Romney’s ludicrous claim that Obama is anti-woman because women have lost more jobs than men since he took office. This was cherry-picking raised to the level of an Olympic sport...

Here's a graph that makes the mendacity clear -




Now what Rosen was actually trying to put on the table (but, clumsily executed) was the question - does the experience of Mitt's wife raising their kids with $125 million in the bank and an income of over $1M/yr provide the same experience as other women regardless of whether they are stay-at-home or in-the-workplace?

The question is important because as Romney has stated -

"My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me. And she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy and getting good jobs for their kids and for themselves. "

After the initial emotional response dies down and no one can remember what it was that a Rosen did back in April, I wonder if what's-her-name's question will be what lives on. How many women will wonder if they had lived 40 years in posh luxury would they have the same experiences and provide the same advice on what is pressing for other women?

What this is getting to is the big question for Romney - his authenticity. We already know the etch-a-sketch candidate has soured the core GOP constituency - Romney would say anything and everything to convince them that he's just as much a Rightee as any T-Party or Evangeline Christian voter. Now he's trying to convince women that he's their man. Soon, I'm sure, he will be trying convince us that only he can reach across all the divides as a moderate centrist.

There will probable be more Rosen's out there that will on-occasion point out the lack of authenticity in a clumsey way and let Romney dodge a news cycle bullet. However, it's not going to play-out that way every time or even a majority of times. And when the dodge doesn't happen, the theme is getting build and reinforced.

I think by the time November rolls around there's a good chance Romney is going to be seen solely as an etch-a-sketch that he let too many diverse people shake far too many times.

A student sent me this video, which was evidently produced by the Jon Stewart of Denmark. As the son of a diplomat, I became quite depressed by it. I would have expected better from our President.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

A student sent me this video, which was evidently produced by the Jon Stewart of Denmark. As the son of a diplomat, I became quite depressed by it. I would have expected better from our President.

Oh, come on. What is said in these 10-minute sit downs is just as obligatory as the shaking hands photo opts. They have nothing to do with what is actually being discussed in the actual meetings.

David, one would think you would know this better than most.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Republicans have always had a streak of libertarianism that came from their Free Soil roots. Since WW II, it has strengthened wrt to domestic policy...


... I don't see any evidence for increasing libertarianism. Besides the time is wrong for this, libertarianism is more of an Awakening thing, with its focus on the inner world of the individual.

It will take a while to get there, but as I see it we are sort of going through a mirror image saeculum vis a vis the past one.
Specifically, what I suspect that we will see is that as the culture war wing of the GOP dies out is a resurgance of rightist libertarism within the Republican party. Part of this is just the generational cycle playing out. Younger conservatives generally have little or no use for the culture war issues. They respond well however to calls for individual autotomy. There is going to be a vaccum and no doubt monied interests will seek to fill it with a polity that advocates in their interest. That will help drive the movement as we get into the 1T.

But aren't 1T's the most conformist part of the cycle?
In general yes. But, we are going through a cycle where established institutions have largely been discredited. Dr. Kaiser may well be correct in that we will not likely see a marshalling of resources to kill off some wannabee grey champion's designited boogey man--our elite just does not have the moral authority to draft millions of humanoid meat blocs for the olive green grinder. Thus, we are likely to see a 1T quite unlike the Great American High. They'll not likely anything like the McCarthy hearings on the reds. We're more likely to see more tolerance for private personal behavior as the outer world continues to work less and less well for msot people.
And all of this is likely to set the stage for a more pragmatic based awakening pragmatic awakening than the last one, but now we're going too far into the future and the mirror image is too distorted from this far away.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

It will take a while to get there, but as I see it we are sort of going through a mirror image saeculum vis a vis the past one.
Specifically, what I suspect that we will see is that as the culture war wing of the GOP dies out is a resurgance of rightist libertarism within the Republican party. Part of this is just the generational cycle playing out. Younger conservatives generally have little or no use for the culture war issues. They respond well however to calls for individual autotomy. There is going to be a vaccum and no doubt monied interests will seek to fill it with a polity that advocates in their interest. That will help drive the movement as we get into the 1T.

But aren't 1T's the most conformist part of the cycle?
In general yes. But, we are going through a cycle where established institutions have largely been discredited. Dr. Kaiser may well be correct in that we will not likely see a marshalling of resources to kill off some wannabee grey champion's designited boogey man--our elite just does not have the moral authority to draft millions of humanoid meat blocs for the olive green grinder. Thus, we are likely to see a 1T quite unlike the Great American High. They'll not likely anything like the McCarthy hearings on the reds. We're more likely to see more tolerance for private personal behavior as the outer world continues to work less and less well for msot people.
And all of this is likely to set the stage for a more pragmatic based awakening pragmatic awakening than the last one, but now we're going too far into the future and the mirror image is too distorted from this far away.

I think you're right. At some not-too-distant time, we're going to let the 'freedom-lovers' have a go at it, but we're not quite there yet. The social side is further ahead than the economic side, so the libertarian dream machine will be at least partly a left-driven movement. But so what? Being allowed to marry is a long way away from being able to survive, and when that dawns on the next crop of Prophets - Katy bar the door.

I'm sad I'll miss it ... unless I'm part of that 1% who live to a century.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It was the dumbest thing ever to come out of an Obama campaign, for President at least.

I disagree. I think the entire thing was orchestrated by Obama, and amounted to a Tar Baby strategy. Here's how it works:

1) A minor Democratic figure expresses an opinion that most people disagree with, but that almost everyone who might vote for Obama anyway finds only mildly objectionable -- wrong, but no big deal.

2) Romney supporters and others on the right, however, object to it strongly, as they have an underlying premise that staying home as mothers is what women OUGHT to be doing. In objecting vociferously to Rosen's opinion, they resurrect and present strongly this bias, which reinforces the "war on women" meme.

3) At the same time, Romney's wealth, which is what allowed his wife to be a stay-home mom in the first place, is put front and center at a time when income gaps are an important issue in public opinion.

4) Obama, after allowing the furor to build for a while, comes out and says that he disagrees with Rosen. Since just about everyone else does, too (however mildly), this costs him nothing with his own side. He looks presidential, the other side looks troglodytic, and he wins all around.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It was the dumbest thing ever to come out of an Obama campaign, for President at least. Given that she's a relatively minor figure (Rosen), it's hard to believe it will have a lot of legs, but. . .really. .. dumb beyond belief. And genuinely offensive.

I have to agree with David here. What was not reflected on primarily, was that housewife or homemaker is a very legitimate "working" occupation, and one that is usually not compensated, whether the family is rich or poor. I'm glad Obama disavowed it.

A more legitimate point would be that today many families are forced by income inequality to have both parents working for inadequate pay, which should not be forced on so many people this way. Romney is obviously out-of-touch with what working people face in this country today, given his famous gaffes.

Edit: what was unclear when I posted this is exactly who Ms. Rosen was. I sure didn't know. She is just a pundit, not affiliated with Obama in any way. So I don't think Obama can be blamed for her gaffe.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It was the dumbest thing ever to come out of an Obama campaign, for President at least. Given that she's a relatively minor figure (Rosen), it's hard to believe it will have a lot of legs, but. . .really. .. dumb beyond belief. And genuinely offensive.

She isn't part of the campaign. And the President refuted her. And, furthermore, in trying to pile on, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says something even stupider and nastier about Rosen.

As Pat suggested, it's quite similar to the etch-a-sketch incident, even though Rosen is not really part of the campaign. And no one is talking about that anymore.

The more I think about Romney. . the guy is exactly my age, he too had a father in public affairs--one more famous than mine by quite a lot--and he went right through the Awakening without showing a single sign of rebellion. By the way, I am rather amazed that Mormon Missionaries could get deferments. I never knew that at the time. No wonder he's so inauthentic. .

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

By the way, I am rather amazed that Mormon Missionaries could get deferments. I never knew that at the time. No wonder he's so inauthentic. .

But those deferments were rationed. Basically each congregation could only have one missionary out at a time, or maybe send one each year. (The system would be different now. A serving missionary still couldn't be drafted, but would usually be considered to be in prime draft age when he got back.) Anyway, many returned missionaries wound up getting drafted, including my 1946 father-in-law.

Ann Romney using herself as an example of a "stay-at-home mom" is quite insulting to the vast majority of stay-at-home moms who don't have the money to pay a nanny to do most of the hard work.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I disagree. I think the entire thing was orchestrated by Obama, and amounted to a Tar Baby strategy. Here's how it works:

1) A minor Democratic figure expresses an opinion that most people disagree with, but that almost everyone who might vote for Obama anyway finds only mildly objectionable -- wrong, but no big deal.

2) Romney supporters and others on the right, however, object to it strongly, as they have an underlying premise that staying home as mothers is what women OUGHT to be doing. In objecting vociferously to Rosen's opinion, they resurrect and present strongly this bias, which reinforces the "war on women" meme.

3) At the same time, Romney's wealth, which is what allowed his wife to be a stay-home mom in the first place, is put front and center at a time when income gaps are an important issue in public opinion.

4) Obama, after allowing the furor to build for a while, comes out and says that he disagrees with Rosen. Since just about everyone else does, too (however mildly), this costs him nothing with his own side. He looks presidential, the other side looks troglodytic, and he wins all around.

Where do you come up with this stuff? I saw a blue bimbo open her mouth and say something really stupid that offended a poster here and unknown numbers of women who are like her which could loose their votes which resulted in rather large scale damage control. I saw defensive politic's in action. Income gap isn't the issue. The working people of today could care less about the rich and their lifestyle. The working people of today are concerned about their individual lifestyle's and sustaining them.

Originally Posted by Odin

Ann Romney using herself as an example of a "stay-at-home mom" is quite insulting to the vast majority of stay-at-home moms who don't have the money to pay a nanny to do most of the hard work.

Well, she is on record as saying that when she and Mitt were in college, they had to sell some of their stock portfolio to make ends meet.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you're right. At some not-too-distant time, we're going to let the 'freedom-lovers' have a go at it, but we're not quite there yet. The social side is further ahead than the economic side, so the libertarian dream machine will be at least partly a left-driven movement. But so what? Being allowed to marry is a long way away from being able to survive, and when that dawns on the next crop of Prophets - Katy bar the door.

I'm sad I'll miss it ... unless I'm part of that 1% who live to a century.

But, the chances are likely that it will begin to occur during my lifetime.

Can We Get Real, Ann Romney? Your Life Is Not Like Ours. And Hilary Rosen? Neither Is Yours

But while that may be true, [Rosen] has also worked for some organizations that just make my skin crawl. (Like the RIAA and BP oil.) She's made herself a nice bundle in the process — more than $1 million a year at RIAA.

So when Rosen is pointing out that Ann Romney's "never worked a day in her life," well, I'd like to point out that no matter what her roots, Hilary Rosen's work life and mothering experience isn't like most of ours, either. Like Ann Romney's, it's now comfortably cushioned by wealth and privilege. While her wealth and privilege was earned through her own hard work [and manipulation of political institutions], it's still a life that's in an economic bubble.

There are some things I just wouldn't do. For instance, I wouldn't have single mothers indicted because their kid downloaded songs. And I wouldn't help an oil company cover up their ecological crimes. But whatever. We make the choices we can live with. I just want to point out that Hilary Rosen is hardly representative of economic suffering, either.

Just once, I'd like to see a Democratic spokesperson who is.

The whole of the political class is entirely out of touch with reality... the big shots in both parties have more in common with each other than they do with any one of us.