Hilary Rosen / Ann Romney

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

Show me the Mass law that makes it illegal to not work if you are a mother with children over the age of 2.

You honestly believe that if you have a 2 year old and you live in Mass you (a woman) MUST work? That is absurd! Come on! This isn't China for F*sake.

You cannot possibly believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frank Bruni -- no Republican sympathizer, he -- wrote a thoughtful column on this. Here's a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/bruni-working-and-women.html

I agree with many of his points. I especially like this:

What’s most bothersome about Rosen’s comment, though, was its betrayal of what the Democratic Party and feminism at their best are supposed to be about: recognizing the full diversity of human experience and empowering everyone along that spectrum to walk successfully down the path of his or her choosing, so long as it poses no clear harm to anyone else.

I don't think Hilary Rosen is an effective voice for the left, and I don't think she lives in the real world any more than Ann Romney does. It's worth noting that many if not most pundits, on both sides of the spectrum, live in a world that's fairly detached from the workaday economic concerns that Rosen says Ann Romney is unfamiliar with.

President Obama and the people he is associated with are wise to detach from Hilary Rosen and her comments. There is absolutely no gain to be found in devaluing the work that stay-at-home mothers do. I bet Michelle Obama thought it was a particularly dumb thing to say.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if this is the GOP's best shot at getting women to vote for them, they are dead in the water.

Head-to-head - what has Michelle Obama done for women in office? NOTHING! Pick organic veggies in her WH garden? Talk about school lunches? Hardly "womens' economic issues," and most certainly not issues that Ann Romney is not competent to debate. And verily, she is no Hillary Clinton - puhlease!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This has been discussed ad naseum in the Off Topic forum.

To me this has nothing to do with the value of being a SAHM or a WOHM. I'm sure Mrs. Romney is a lovely person, a great mom, a survivor, and probably the first person I'd ask for parenting advice. Advice on how to juggle my demanding career with parenting, maybe not so much.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions. When an individual's opinions start to form the basis for policy, that is where I get nervous. Take for example the lawmaker last week who, while repealling an equal pay law in his state, said that equal pay laws aren't needed - because duh, MEN are the breadwinners, money is more important to men. What would some old white guy know about me as a working mother and what's important to me, and how important money is to me?


I think Rosen and her statements have NOTHING to do with Obama and whether or not anyone should vote for him. Why do YOU think it's appropriate to blame him for the comments of some talking head on CNN? Should Romney be blamed for everything Glenn Beck or Limbaugh says?

I think it's questionable for the wife of a billionaire to be referred to during a Presidential campaign as a reliable source of what the average Joe or Jane Shmo thinks or feels about the economy. I think it underscores the degree to which Romney is out of touch with the reality most Americans are living. Remember, HE brought her into this discussion by saying, to paraphrase, "well all this nonsense about abortion and vaginas and menstruation and in the news is meaningless. THAT is not what women care about. My wife tells me women actually care about the economy!". Here's a tip, a billionaire stay at home mom might not understand the degree to which my uterine rights actually DO matter to me.

Romney is the one who tried to reframe the discussion. Hey everybody, ignore the hundreds of laws across the country eroding reproductive rights, and please let's start talking about the economy again - cuz my wife says THAT is the real women's issue. And any reasonable person can't help but think, how is this person, Ann Romney - probably a very nice person and an experienced mom, first person you might want to ask for advice on parenting or illness or any number of matters - how is it that a candidate for President thinks she holds any authority in the area of deciding what average women really care about?

I resent him telling me what women really care about. I resent him using his wife as a citable resource for what women really care about. I resent all this crap that is going on in the year of the woman 2012. Don't tell me what to do with my vagina. Don't tell me I'm pregnant two weeks before I even have sex. Don't tell me I don't need money as much as a man does. And DON'T tell me what women like me actually care about.

If Republicans had a brain between them you would stop talking about women in ANY capacity whatsoever.

I asked OP what he/she thought. I think maybe this response is from OP but I don't know. I am going to respond as if it is from OP but if it isn't, I apologize in advance for that assumption although it doesn't matter because whether this is OP or a new poster, my reaction is the same.

I think that it is actually the luxury of the well-heeled to focus on reproductive rights more than the economy. I think your views on that betray your own financial situation and perhaps you are more similar to Ann Romney than to the average voter. Reproductive rights and many other social issues are VERY important but if people need jobs or better paying jobs or are struggling to pay their mortgages, I think it is common sense that they are more concerned about the economy than other issues that may not be as immediately relevant to them on a daily basis.

You say that everyone is entitled to their opinions but that when those opinions impact policy, you don't like that. I think that you are omitting the qualifier that if you don't agree with those opinions, then you don't want those opinions to form the basis for policy. In every case the origin of policy is an opinion. For example, some people have an opinion that women should have the final say on their abortion rights. That is an opinion that has informed and shaped policy. Others disagree with that and they try to shape policy to conform with their opinions. So, I think you are being disingenuous when you say that everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it doesn't impact policy. Either disingenuous or very naive.

I did not blame President Obama for Rosen's statements. I just said that if you are inclined to vote for him and if you agree with Rosen, then you will defend her. Reread my post and you will see I am correct and that you are mischaracterizing my statements.

I resent that you believe that your opinions are the final word on what women want. You lack any respect for democracy because you believe you are right and that the voice of the people as expressed through voting is unnecessary because you have it all figured out. I am a woman, a lawyer, a mother, a volunteer with disabled and children, an abortion veteran and thus pro-choice, and a Republican. Don't dare to pretend that you can speak for me. You are arrogant and self-centered and I thank God (that I do believe in) that we live in the USA where people like you only get one vote. I know that if we didn't have as strong a government as we do, you and your kind wouldn't think twice about taking away my vote because you believe to your core that you know better than me.

You are crazy - a lot of your babble is nonsensical - for real. I stopped thinking of what to quote because so much of it is gobbley-gook - not even worthy of calling simply "democrat" or "liberal" or even "far left."

Taken as a BIG whole, overall, you are obviously terribly shaken over the whole intravaginal ultrasound before an abortion issue? When is the last time you had an abortion? Do you know how that works? In case you don't, I do - I had one. You see, first they have to make sure there is a baby there. That requires a pee or blood test and a sonogram. So is it a violation of your privacy for a pee or blood test too? Does that go too far? Anyway, after the tests to make sure the baby is there, they stick some medal things WAYYYY up your vagina, past your vagina, and poke them into your cervix. Then, when the cervix opens, they stick a long medical sort of vaccum hose again WAYYYY up your vagina, past it, through the cervix, and into the uterus, and the baby gets sucked into a vaccum - it actually looks like mine at home. So you can forget the whole abortion thing not involving going into your vagina, because it involves going WAYYYYY further up there than that, ok? So if you want to protect your vagina, don't get an abortion.

There is a difference between what a doctor and a woman agree must be done in order to perform an abortion or any other medical procedure. The government are not gynecologist. They should have NO say in what happens to anybody's vagina. Even VA gov McDonell acknowledged this in his statement on the VAGOP wanding plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
the problem with the romney's is their inability to connect with "average" americans. yes they are rich as hell and i dont care. the problem is that by being so rich and never having to really work from nothing or not willing to truly see what "normal" is, it distorts their judgement on the solutions that are best for america. not all rich people have this problem so im not stirring up a class warfare debate here.

who says they need to connect with the 'average'
do you not know they are the ruling class?

if you are trying to be president of the united states, i imagine one thing you should try to understand is how the world is viewed and works for people across the entire spectrum.

romney's inability to connect is an ongoing problem hes had since he started running in 2008. his world view is within the context of being rich and never having explored anything different, his answer to everything is within the context of his position in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

Show me the Mass law that makes it illegal to not work if you are a mother with children over the age of 2.

You honestly believe that if you have a 2 year old and you live in Mass you (a woman) MUST work? That is absurd! Come on! This isn't China for F*sake.

You cannot possibly believe that.

Whether he made it a law or not, he said he WANTED it to be law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This has been discussed ad naseum in the Off Topic forum.

To me this has nothing to do with the value of being a SAHM or a WOHM. I'm sure Mrs. Romney is a lovely person, a great mom, a survivor, and probably the first person I'd ask for parenting advice. Advice on how to juggle my demanding career with parenting, maybe not so much.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions. When an individual's opinions start to form the basis for policy, that is where I get nervous. Take for example the lawmaker last week who, while repealling an equal pay law in his state, said that equal pay laws aren't needed - because duh, MEN are the breadwinners, money is more important to men. What would some old white guy know about me as a working mother and what's important to me, and how important money is to me?


I think Rosen and her statements have NOTHING to do with Obama and whether or not anyone should vote for him. Why do YOU think it's appropriate to blame him for the comments of some talking head on CNN? Should Romney be blamed for everything Glenn Beck or Limbaugh says?

I think it's questionable for the wife of a billionaire to be referred to during a Presidential campaign as a reliable source of what the average Joe or Jane Shmo thinks or feels about the economy. I think it underscores the degree to which Romney is out of touch with the reality most Americans are living. Remember, HE brought her into this discussion by saying, to paraphrase, "well all this nonsense about abortion and vaginas and menstruation and in the news is meaningless. THAT is not what women care about. My wife tells me women actually care about the economy!". Here's a tip, a billionaire stay at home mom might not understand the degree to which my uterine rights actually DO matter to me.

Romney is the one who tried to reframe the discussion. Hey everybody, ignore the hundreds of laws across the country eroding reproductive rights, and please let's start talking about the economy again - cuz my wife says THAT is the real women's issue. And any reasonable person can't help but think, how is this person, Ann Romney - probably a very nice person and an experienced mom, first person you might want to ask for advice on parenting or illness or any number of matters - how is it that a candidate for President thinks she holds any authority in the area of deciding what average women really care about?

I resent him telling me what women really care about. I resent him using his wife as a citable resource for what women really care about. I resent all this crap that is going on in the year of the woman 2012. Don't tell me what to do with my vagina. Don't tell me I'm pregnant two weeks before I even have sex. Don't tell me I don't need money as much as a man does. And DON'T tell me what women like me actually care about.

If Republicans had a brain between them you would stop talking about women in ANY capacity whatsoever.

I asked OP what he/she thought. I think maybe this response is from OP but I don't know. I am going to respond as if it is from OP but if it isn't, I apologize in advance for that assumption although it doesn't matter because whether this is OP or a new poster, my reaction is the same.

I think that it is actually the luxury of the well-heeled to focus on reproductive rights more than the economy. I think your views on that betray your own financial situation and perhaps you are more similar to Ann Romney than to the average voter. Reproductive rights and many other social issues are VERY important but if people need jobs or better paying jobs or are struggling to pay their mortgages, I think it is common sense that they are more concerned about the economy than other issues that may not be as immediately relevant to them on a daily basis.

You say that everyone is entitled to their opinions but that when those opinions impact policy, you don't like that. I think that you are omitting the qualifier that if you don't agree with those opinions, then you don't want those opinions to form the basis for policy. In every case the origin of policy is an opinion. For example, some people have an opinion that women should have the final say on their abortion rights. That is an opinion that has informed and shaped policy. Others disagree with that and they try to shape policy to conform with their opinions. So, I think you are being disingenuous when you say that everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it doesn't impact policy. Either disingenuous or very naive.

I did not blame President Obama for Rosen's statements. I just said that if you are inclined to vote for him and if you agree with Rosen, then you will defend her. Reread my post and you will see I am correct and that you are mischaracterizing my statements.

I resent that you believe that your opinions are the final word on what women want. You lack any respect for democracy because you believe you are right and that the voice of the people as expressed through voting is unnecessary because you have it all figured out. I am a woman, a lawyer, a mother, a volunteer with disabled and children, an abortion veteran and thus pro-choice, and a Republican. Don't dare to pretend that you can speak for me. You are arrogant and self-centered and I thank God (that I do believe in) that we live in the USA where people like you only get one vote. I know that if we didn't have as strong a government as we do, you and your kind wouldn't think twice about taking away my vote because you believe to your core that you know better than me.

You are crazy - a lot of your babble is nonsensical - for real. I stopped thinking of what to quote because so much of it is gobbley-gook - not even worthy of calling simply "democrat" or "liberal" or even "far left."

Taken as a BIG whole, overall, you are obviously terribly shaken over the whole intravaginal ultrasound before an abortion issue? When is the last time you had an abortion? Do you know how that works? In case you don't, I do - I had one. You see, first they have to make sure there is a baby there. That requires a pee or blood test and a sonogram. So is it a violation of your privacy for a pee or blood test too? Does that go too far? Anyway, after the tests to make sure the baby is there, they stick some medal things WAYYYY up your vagina, past your vagina, and poke them into your cervix. Then, when the cervix opens, they stick a long medical sort of vaccum hose again WAYYYY up your vagina, past it, through the cervix, and into the uterus, and the baby gets sucked into a vaccum - it actually looks like mine at home. So you can forget the whole abortion thing not involving going into your vagina, because it involves going WAYYYYY further up there than that, ok? So if you want to protect your vagina, don't get an abortion.

There is a difference between what a doctor and a woman agree must be done in order to perform an abortion or any other medical procedure. The government are not gynecologist. They should have NO say in what happens to anybody's vagina. Even VA gov McDonell acknowledged this in his statement on the VAGOP wanding plan.

Please explain, in detail, why having an ultrasound up your vagina is bad immediately prior to that vacuum going way up into your vagina, through your cervix, and into your uterus and vacuuming the baby out? Again, I describe it this way after having had one myself. And don't tell me it's just "the principle" (meaning, you have no actual reason except to be argumentative).

And please explain if you will likewise decline any blood testing to confirm your pregnancy - does that violate your vein's privacy or is that otherwise wrong?

[Anonymous]

It is a medical procedure dictated by the government (via a law). The medical procedure is separated from the medical context and turned into a moral obligation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

Show me the Mass law that makes it illegal to not work if you are a mother with children over the age of 2.

You honestly believe that if you have a 2 year old and you live in Mass you (a woman) MUST work? That is absurd! Come on! This isn't China for F*sake.

You cannot possibly believe that.

Whether he made it a law or not, he said he WANTED it to be law.

Bullsh*t - and you know it - or at least anyone with half a brain - you must have the IQ of a low moron. You KNOW he never intended to make it a crime for a woman with kids to stay at home. (The LDS church would likely expel him if he ever intended on doing that too btw). Just like I KNOW Obama, as an adult, would never knowingly eat dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
the problem with the romney's is their inability to connect with "average" americans. yes they are rich as hell and i dont care. the problem is that by being so rich and never having to really work from nothing or not willing to truly see what "normal" is, it distorts their judgement on the solutions that are best for america. not all rich people have this problem so im not stirring up a class warfare debate here.

who says they need to connect with the 'average'
do you not know they are the ruling class?

if you are trying to be president of the united states, i imagine one thing you should try to understand is how the world is viewed and works for people across the entire spectrum.

romney's inability to connect is an ongoing problem hes had since he started running in 2008. his world view is within the context of being rich and never having explored anything different, his answer to everything is within the context of his position in life.

Bruni quoter again. I hate to say this, but many if not most recent presidents don't have a lot of context for understanding economic struggles. Would you have made the same argument against John F. Kennedy? Or our 2004 nominee, John Kerry? Even recent Democratic presidents who weren't raised in wealth (Clinton, Obama) came out of elite institutions. Does the typical Harvard Law or Yale Law grad really relate to "average" Americans? Let's argue against Romney on the basis of policy, not his family's wealth or his wife's work history.

[Anonymous]

Here is Romeny, in his own words.

Please explain to me how a work "REQUIREMENT" is not the same thing as a law?

http://www.newser.com/story/144142/romney-welfare-moms-need-dignity-of-work.html

[Anonymous]

Please explain, in detail, why having an ultrasound up your vagina is bad immediately prior to that vacuum going way up into your vagina, through your cervix, and into your uterus and vacuuming the baby out? Again, I describe it this way after having had one myself. And don't tell me it's just "the principle" (meaning, you have no actual reason except to be argumentative).

And please explain if you will likewise decline any blood testing to confirm your pregnancy - does that violate your vein's privacy or is that otherwise wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you reallly don't understand why it's objectionable to have the government passing wanding laws, I can't help you wrap your mind around that. It is not only about vaginal ultrasounds, although that is an extreme example.


"I previously recommended amendments to the legislature to remove any requirement in this bill for a state mandated internal ultrasound procedure, and the General Assembly agreed that amendments were necessary. I do not believe any woman should be required by the state to undergo such an ultrasound, without her consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure. The bill I signed today ensures that will not occur. - Bob McDonnell, R- VA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

[b]Show me the Mass law that makes it illegal to not work if you are a mother with children over the age of 2. You honestly believe that if you have a 2 year old and you live in Mass you (a woman) MUST work? That is absurd! Come on! This isn't China for F*sake.

You cannot possibly believe that.

To be clear - not saying Romney said ALL moms must work in order to have dignity. Just the poor ones. The ones on welfare.

[Anonymous]

Bruni quoter again. I hate to say this, but many if not most recent presidents don't have a lot of context for understanding economic struggles. Would you have made the same argument against John F. Kennedy? Or our 2004 nominee, John Kerry? Even recent Democratic presidents who weren't raised in wealth (Clinton, Obama) came out of elite institutions. Does the typical Harvard Law or Yale Law grad really relate to "average" Americans? Let's argue against Romney on the basis of policy, not his family's wealth or his wife's work history.

romneys wealth isnt an issue to me. he can be a billionaire and own half the land in the country for all i care.

the problem with why romney does fail to connect with people is because as a result of his wealth he has, either by design or by accident, rarely tried to relate with the "common" people. im aware most politicians are wealthy but they have had an ability to connect with voters regardless of their status and romney lacks that.

"connecting" with common people to romney is mentioning his wealthy friends in nascar or how many cars he owns. things like that are a big deal to regular people who dont pay attention to politics 24/7.

and this all comes full circle because romneys disconnect drives his policy positions. as oppose to speaking from the standpoint of the "common" man, his ideas are driven in the view of a wealthy person. thats the case in tax policy, his stance with programs to help the less fortunate, etc.

again, i dont care that he is rich. im not that type of dem. all im offering is an explanation that his failure to connect with voters has to do with the world view he carries around being a wealthy person. im not making the connection that all wealthy people are like this. im strictly reserving this one thought to romney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bruni quoter again. I hate to say this, but many if not most recent presidents don't have a lot of context for understanding economic struggles. Would you have made the same argument against John F. Kennedy? Or our 2004 nominee, John Kerry? Even recent Democratic presidents who weren't raised in wealth (Clinton, Obama) came out of elite institutions. Does the typical Harvard Law or Yale Law grad really relate to "average" Americans? Let's argue against Romney on the basis of policy, not his family's wealth or his wife's work history.

romneys wealth isnt an issue to me. he can be a billionaire and own half the land in the country for all i care.

the problem with why romney does fail to connect with people is because as a result of his wealth he has, either by design or by accident, rarely tried to relate with the "common" people. im aware most politicians are wealthy but they have had an ability to connect with voters regardless of their status and romney lacks that.

"connecting" with common people to romney is mentioning his wealthy friends in nascar or how many cars he owns. things like that are a big deal to regular people who dont pay attention to politics 24/7.

and this all comes full circle because romneys disconnect drives his policy positions. as oppose to speaking from the standpoint of the "common" man, his ideas are driven in the view of a wealthy person. thats the case in tax policy, his stance with programs to help the less fortunate, etc.

again, i dont care that he is rich. im not that type of dem. all im offering is an explanation that his failure to connect with voters has to do with the world view he carries around being a wealthy person. im not making the connection that all wealthy people are like this. im strictly reserving this one thought to romney.

I know what you're saying, but plenty of politicians lack the ability to connect with voters: Al Gore, George W. Bush -- even Obama is criticized for this, and by the left as much as the right. Remember Obama asking a bunch of Iowa farmers if they knew how much Whole Foods charges for arugula?

I think Romney's real difficulty is that he's socially awkward. He opens his mouth to try to sound like a regular guy and out pops something about his NASCAR owner friends. Obama's not a "regular guy" either. That's why he has Joe Biden.