Anonymous wrote:I'm with Jeff on this one. Looks like the head of domestic policy in the Romney white house would be Ann. As her direct experience is entirely of raising boys, she could be tempted to simply track the Morman teachings on any matters relating to women. I take Mitt at his word on how he will get info about the things that matter to women.

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.

Anonymous wrote:This crowd is so drunk on the democratic koolaid that you have no credibility. What about Clinton relying on Hilary to write his version if health care. She was unelected and not even an expert on health care. She is super bright and hard worker but that was beyond inappropriate and yet I'm sure this crowd will find some way to make that ok. The poster who got bet up by you people today made a lot of valid points but you cannot even slow down enough to consider them. Dcum is so slanted and the IQs are so low, I may just have to step back from here for a while. I wonder why I care for your views on real estate or schools.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, thanks for the reply. But again, when has a republican merely mentioned women and had a big deal made out of it, when it was actually NOT a big deal?

Example, Rush Limbaugh and the Slut/Whore thing, a libelous characterization in response to a woman's CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, which he continued for hours and days - actually a big deal.
Example "War on Caterpillars" - trying to minimize the very real onslaught of legislation against repro choice. Mmmmm, kind of a big deal.
Example, "women delivering stillborn babies is similar to the dead animals I sometimes have to see born on my farm". Yeah, kind of a big deal.

Can you point me to a tempest in a teapot, i.e. republican said something about women, everyone made a huge - undeserved - fuss in response?

How about that dumb little comment Hilary Rosen made that got so much press?

Huh? She's not a Republican? Never mind!

Yes, thank you 12 year old boy. Guess you just latch keyed yourself into the house and got on mom's computer?

We all know about what Rosen said - thus the title of this thread. We are asking, do any of you know of a case when a r) made one little comment that got twisted out of context and was made a huge ridiculous deal out of. Raise your hand when you know the answer!

Anonymous wrote:me again

i dont think it about taking a republican issue out of context more than it is beating a dead horse.

dems seem to be sensationalize this issue with women. the dissecting of ann romeny is an example of something "small". who cares if she worked a day in her life or is qualified to be considered a "stay at home mom" because shes rich. thats something "small" in my mind they run with to make an issue thats not there.

its not about taking an issue the republicans are trying to implement in a state that are small. its the topics they seek out to allow the issue to still have legs. its paramount to republicans going after everything michelle does and deeming that the biggest issue. dems are starting to do the same thing with ann romeny and its annoying.

Anonymous wrote:This crowd is so drunk on the democratic koolaid that you have no credibility. What about Clinton relying on Hilary to write his version if health care. She was unelected and not even an expert on health care. She is super bright and hard worker but that was beyond inappropriate and yet I'm sure this crowd will find some way to make that ok. The poster who got bet up by you people today made a lot of valid points but you cannot even slow down enough to consider them. Dcum is so slanted and the IQs are so low, I may just have to step back from here for a while. I wonder why I care for your views on real estate or schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:06 you have a point that republicans on the state level are going extreme with these policies against women.

when i said "small", i was talking about taking a republican merly mentioning women in any context and forcing an issue out of it. pretty much im saying that dems have valid arguments to go after but they run with it to the extent that everything about women gets looked at under the microscope.

OK, thanks for the reply. But again, when has a republican merely mentioned women and had a big deal made out of it, when it was actually NOT a big deal?

Example, Rush Limbaugh and the Slut/Whore thing, a libelous characterization in response to a woman's CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, which he continued for hours and days - actually a big deal.
Example "War on Caterpillars" - trying to minimize the very real onslaught of legislation against repro choice. Mmmmm, kind of a big deal.
Example, "women delivering stillborn babies is similar to the dead animals I sometimes have to see born on my farm". Yeah, kind of a big deal.

Can you point me to a tempest in a teapot, i.e. republican said something about women, everyone made a huge - undeserved - fuss in response?

How about that dumb little comment Hilary Rosen made that got so much press?

Huh? She's not a Republican? Never mind!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:06 you have a point that republicans on the state level are going extreme with these policies against women.

when i said "small", i was talking about taking a republican merly mentioning women in any context and forcing an issue out of it. pretty much im saying that dems have valid arguments to go after but they run with it to the extent that everything about women gets looked at under the microscope.

OK, thanks for the reply. But again, when has a republican merely mentioned women and had a big deal made out of it, when it was actually NOT a big deal?

Example, Rush Limbaugh and the Slut/Whore thing, a libelous characterization in response to a woman's CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, which he continued for hours and days - actually a big deal.
Example "War on Caterpillars" - trying to minimize the very real onslaught of legislation against repro choice. Mmmmm, kind of a big deal.
Example, "women delivering stillborn babies is similar to the dead animals I sometimes have to see born on my farm". Yeah, kind of a big deal.

Can you point me to a tempest in a teapot, i.e. republican said something about women, everyone made a huge - undeserved - fuss in response?

Anonymous wrote:11:06 you have a point that republicans on the state level are going extreme with these policies against women.

when i said "small", i was talking about taking a republican merly mentioning women in any context and forcing an issue out of it. pretty much im saying that dems have valid arguments to go after but they run with it to the extent that everything about women gets looked at under the microscope.

Anonymous wrote:havent read everything on here but my thought is that rosen's statement was dumb in the context of this whole "war on women" thing we have going on.

as a dem, i can admit that had rosen been a republican, the news would be all over the comment to add the narrative that republicans are against women. in turn, i am not surprised that the GOP is attempting to use the episode to their advantage. for that reason alone, rosen's statement is dumb.

i can understand what rosen was trying to say and if dems and republicans werent 5 years olds always trying to play gotcha, this story would have no legs. i find it funny that dems try to "explain" rosen's comments and say that republicans are blowing this out of proportion (they are to some extent), when they spend segement upon segment on their news shows highlighting even the smallest republican policy against women.

again, this is how the game is played. the dems who quickly shot the comment down did so correctly and those trying to still "explain" them are fools. obama, axelrod, and co who have backed off rosen's statement did so for poitical reasons and for how they come off in the context of this "war" as i stated at the top. the dems trying to finesse explanations just want to keep the nonsense going for ratings and entertainment.

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.