A woman's right to choose to do the very hard work of raising a family, of keeping a house in order has been mocked by militant 'working woman' Hilary Rosen. Who jumped up to defend the target of the mocking? President B. Obama, Rosen's boss.
In the last election, we joked about "who Obama would 'throw under the bus next"-as he ran away from every politically embarrassing associate...until the cameras were turned off. Then some of those same embarrassments received cabinet posts in his admin.
Itsa like spaghetti, friends. Right now the Obama re-election campaign is tossing different types of mud against the Romney wall to see what sticks. This crack about Ann Romney backfires? Whoops! President Obacktrack swoops in to defend.
There's plenty more mud available, so don't worry about President Obama and his minions running out of ammunition.
Or money. He's still fundraising although he reportedly has a war chest of nearly a BILLION dollars.
Math quiz: If President Obama has a billion dollars of tax free money to spend on his re-election, but only uses $500,000.00-(which is enough to win three or four elections, especially in this economy with prices driven down...) what happens to the other $500,000.00?
He can't use it for another election, unless he loses this one and then tries to run again in 2016. He can't expect to run his wife for the top spot ala Hillary...as she hasn't worked a day in her life. (Just kidding!-she used to shake down contributors for a hospital in Chicago. "If you don't want to see picket lines in front of your store, give to the UMC!")
President Obama has already told the DNC that he won't share his war chest with down ticket Democrats, so I have a suggestion for P. O.:
After you lose the election, Barry, donate the war chest, all the tax free donations, to the Treasury to help pay down the debts you've run up as President.
It would only be a symbolic drop in the bucket, but it's the thought that also counts.
16 comments:
I hope you caught that I called the President Rosen's boss-all of the liberal media seems to get its orders from the Oval office these days. Whichever media she works for (Cnn) she really works for the Obama re-election campaign.
All for naught. When the people have their say in November, I expect that most of us will say "NO!" to four more years of President Obama.
I've come to the point where I am fine with the idea of a President Romney-he wasn't even my third choice, but when you run out of choices, you go with what is left.
Oh, please. What Rosen said to provoke all the right-wing frothing was that Ann Romney never worked a day in her life. I'm sure this isn't strictly true: keeping all those nannies and housekeepers and tutors in line probably was enough to make her want to jump into a Cadillac and roar off into the sunset some days.
I've been a childless working woman, I've been a mom who works outside the home, and I've been (briefly) a stay-at-home mom. I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me that Ann Romney has the first clue what my life is like. (And, truth to tell, my life has been pretty easy. I'd love to see Ann Romney change places for one day with a single mother trying to figure out how to pay for day care and put food on the table while praying that no one gets sick.)
Mitt Romney and his family are filthy rich. The rich are different from you and me: they have more staff. (More cars, more houses, more horses...) For anyone including them to pretend that they're just regular folks is foolish. This isn't envy talking, it's reality.
(By the way, guess who doesn't think being a stay-at-home mom is respectable work.)
"but you cannot convince me that Ann Romney has the first clue what my life is like."
I wouldn't even try, Lu-I myself haven't any idea what your life is like.
As for your link-if it comes from 'Huffpo' it MUST be true! ;)
On another "it MUST be true site"-Rush Limbaugh played an audio interview from a few years ago when Ann Romney was talking to someone about her and Mitt's early life-they married in college, and lived in a $60.00 a month apartment for their first few years-they refused help from their parents and made their own life. Their first son was born while they lived in that apartment, and they stayed there until Mitt graduated and found his first job.
Lu, after my stint in the Coast Guard, my first regular job payed $4.00 an hour. I rented a room in someone's house a few blocks form work, paid all my bills and was 'making it' just fine. I was there for three years (bumped all the way up to $4.10 per hour!) before I moved to Missouri to work with a friend for $5.00 per hour, which seemed like found gold to me. I worked 60 hours a week and it was one of the best times in my life.
Here's the thing, Lu-I'm still a wage slave, living check to paycheck...and I am happy. I don't begrudge the Romneys their wealth-they earned it. I don't care if they have more stuff than I ever will-I'm immune to the Dems attempts to incite class warfare.
Bye the bye-your link to the Huffpo-
"Huffington rose to national prominence during her husband's unsuccessful Senate bid in 1994. She became known as a reliable supporter of conservative causes such as Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" and Bob Dole's 1996 candidacy for president. She teamed up with liberal comedian Al Franken as the conservative half of "Strange Bedfellows"[9] during Comedy Central's coverage of the 1996 U.S. presidential election. For her work, she and the writing team of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher were nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Writing for a Variety or Music Program.
Huffington's politics began to shift back[clarification needed] toward the left in the late 1990s.
Huffington met her future husband Michael Huffington in 1985. They were married a year later. They later established residency in Santa Barbara, California, in order for him to run in 1992 as a Republican for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, which he won by a significant margin. Arianna campaigned for her husband, courting religious conservatives, arguing for smaller government and a reduction in welfare. In 1994, he narrowly lost the race for the U.S. Senate seat to California to incumbent Dianne Feinstein."
There you go, Lu-Huffpo was concocted by a rich carpetbagger who 'established residency' in Santa Barbara so that her Republican husband could run for Congress. Sounds just like you and me, doesn't she?
Santa Barbara reminds me-I enjoy the show "Psych" which takes place there. The DVD sets are chock full of extras, adding to my enjoyment of the series. Joebob says check it out.
I knew you would leap all over HuffPo. Would you prefer a link to a different site with that same video? Are you claiming that the video is fake? In January Romney said he wanted to give single mothers "the dignity of work," implying that stay-at-home moms 1) don't work 2) lack dignity. Then to score political points off Rosen's ill-chosen words last week he and his wife both said being a stay-at-home mom is work. Well, is it or isn't it? He can't have it both ways.
Then we have this priceless quote from Ann Romney on CNN: "It’s hard work micromanaging a full staff in multiple homes. There were several nannies to oversee, as well as a number of maids, butlers, chauffeurs, gardeners, tutors and private coaches."
How the Romneys lived when they were first married is irrelevant. What is relevant is that here and now they claim to want to help working people while being so out of touch as to be beyond parody.
"I want individuals to have the dignity of work." quote from the video you posted. I have no problem with what Romney said in the video-is it being mean to suggest that people should be motivated to take care of themselves? Evil?
Hateful?
No-it's common sense. I am motivated to take care of myself-I am invested in my life.
As for your 'priceless Ann Romney quote from CNN'-I think you've been fooled by a fake quote which did it's job-it ignited your indignation, just like the Palin "I can see Russia from my house" fake quote.
Lu, please don't take my word for it-go to the source, CNN, and search for "Ann Romney". If she said it,they would have it.
But if someone else played on your emotions with a fake quote, shame on them.
"How the Romneys lived when they were first married is irrelevant."
Why? Why is that irrelevant? In your life, hasn't past experience helped to mold you into who you are today?
That's how it works with me-I am in part the product of lessons learned in my earlier years.
Let me know if you find verification for that Ann Romney quote.
I did wonder about that quote at the time, since I couldn't find video for it, and you are right, it's fake. My bad. Here's what she actually did say:
"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."
Once again, does raising kids count as a "career," or doesn't it? Is it work, or isn't it? Does it deserve respect, or doesn't it? Yes or no?
Lu are you arguing for my side?
"Once again, does raising kids count as a "career," or doesn't it? Is it work, or isn't it? Does it deserve respect, or doesn't it? Yes or no?"
Look at the name of my post.
It is absolutely a career, and women who raise children work just as hard as anyone in corporate.
Then why does Mitt Romney think poor single moms need "the dignity of work"?
I knew that that was where you were going, Lu.
A 'single mom'-I'm sure that you mean one who has no husband with whom to be an equal partner in raising a family-is a person in a terrible mess, one that should not be the norm. I recognize the reality that it is becoming the norm in our broken society.
If you mean the 'welfare mom' who has replaced a husband's paycheck with one from the government-that is the saddest family possible.
It is akin to voluntarily putting a slave collar on the neck for both the woman and the children who are in effect 'owned' by the government, sometimes for generations, all in the name of 'helping' the poor.
The dignity of work-which may seem like a foreign concept to a 'single mom' who has been on welfare for years, who perhaps is the second or third generation of 'welfare moms' in her family...but I can attest that earning one's own money, rather than depending on the government, is more life affirming and is indeed more dignified. How much of our self esteem is built up by working, doing a good job? That's is certainly how it goes with me.
If there is no shame in welfare, if it is considered a viable option versus a husband being part of the 'nuclear family'...well, I did say broken society.
Whew! I got through all of that without mentioning Dan Quayle and the proper spelling of the multiple of 'potato'!
You're dodging the question. The question is: is raising children work that is just as valuable as the work of a corporate wage slave? If that's true, it's true whether the person doing it is a poor single mom or the wife of a rich man.
Now, if Mitt Romney had said "the dignity of financial independence" or "the dignity of being self-supporting" I'd have to agree with him. I know and highly respect a number of women who have raised kids on their own, supporting their families through their own work. (Most though not all of them were married when they had kids.) And a major reason I've continued to work for pay after having kids is so that I could support myself and them if I ever found myself alone. (My husband is the very definition of reliable, but, as you often point out, we never know what twists and turns life will take.) But Romney didn't say any of that, he said "the dignity of work."
I'm dodging nothing, Lu-you're not listening. By choice.
"The question is: is raising children work that is just as valuable as the work of a corporate wage slave? If that's true, it's true whether the person doing it is a poor single mom or the wife of a rich man."
With libs it's always extremes: poor single mom OR wife of rich man.
The proper nuclear family is the optimum-husband, wife raising children together.
"Raising children" is just as hard and important a work as being a wage slave.
There is a difference between a woman who has lost a husband and his support and a 'welfare mom' who has supplanted the husband/father with a regular government check.
Someone who has lost a husband would do well to remarry and restore that nuclear family, which is the best way to raise children.
A single mom who thinks she can do it all herself without a husband (if she gets government money to supplant the husband) is not benefiting herself or the kids.
This isn't academic-I have friends in that exact situation-single mom, no husband. If posed the question, "Husband or welfare?" I can bet you that they would choose husband every time, though life is never so simple.
Government Welfare keeps people locked into servitude to the government. Better to be poor and stand on your own (as I do) than being forced by circumstance to bow the knee to the government for your sustenance.
Did I cover the question to your satisfaction this time, Lu?
Look for a new post soon.
A single mom who thinks she can do it all herself without a husband (if she gets government money to supplant the husband) is not benefiting herself or the kids.
Some of those single moms I admire lost their husbands to divorce (and some never saw a dime of child support afterward) and some to death; even you can't fault a widow for her husband's death (unless of course she murdered him, which isn't true of anyone I know). And where, pray tell, are these women supposed to find instant replacement husbands to restore their "proper nuclear family"? Nearly everyone over 30 is married already, and if a man isn't it's usually either because he doesn't want to be or because no sane woman would have him, especially if she has kids to support. I do know a couple of women who pulled it off, but only after going solo for years -- not by replacing the husband's paycheck with a government handout but by earning a paycheck themselves, juggling work, child care and household responsibilities as best they could. Not the ideal life, I'll grant you, but what would you have them do? (You might say the ones who got divorced shouldn't have, but most of them had little choice in the matter.)
Now, interestingly enough, though it's easier to draw contrasts by arguing in terms of extreme cases -- rich man's wife vs. poor single mom -- I agree with you on quite a few points, such as:
- It's best for people to be married and (as a couple) able to support a family before having kids.
- Long-term welfare tends to destroy the very people it sets out to help, both parents and children (though I maintain that short-term welfare, a hand up rather than a handout as the saying goes, can benefit both recipients and society).
- Raising kids singlehandedly is barely humanly possible, which is why it's better to be married, and also why...
- Couples with kids should stay together if they possibly can until the kids are grown.
- Raising kids is just as valuable as working for pay, but...
- In our real world no one can expect to get paid to do it.
That last one is where I end up. In our real world, no one gets paid to raise their own kids (or not for long, and not enough). Moreover, most salaries won't support a whole family, and most moms don't get to choose whether to stay home with their kids, because economic reality demands that they keep working for pay. And that is a reality that Mitt and Ann Romney haven't experienced in a very long time.
"Some of those single moms I admire lost their husbands to divorce (and some never saw a dime of child support afterward) and some to death; even you can't fault a widow for her husband's death (unless of course she murdered him, which isn't true of anyone I know). And where, pray tell, are these women supposed to find instant replacement husbands to restore their "proper nuclear family"?"
this is what I meant about thinking only in extremes. I was in no way talking about women who had been divorced or who had a husband die. I thought from the context you would have gotten that, but silly old me.
I mean women who have had been 'locked into' the "Welfare trap"-
have child without husband, need and get Welfare, must stay home to take care of child alone. Often child becomes children, many of whom eventually fall into the trap of Welfare themselves when they grow older.
If you work, you lose the Welfare benefit, so you can make more money by having more kids.
You're right, Lu-we do have some areas of agreement. There have been times in my life when I survived on Unemployment insurance which isn't the same thing, but is close. I have no problem with a hand up rather than a hand out...but you and I both know that some people game the system and think that they deserve all that they can get away with.
In a way, my parents were repaid for raising me-as they grew older and helpless, I took care of them, which in a way was repayment.
I'm thinking in extremes? I say "poor single mother" and you leap immediately to "welfare whore." I was trying to point out that 1) if raising one's own kids is work, it's work no matter who does it (however unwise she may have been to have kids in the first place) 2) most low-income single mothers didn't have kids expecting the government to support them forever.
Your fulminations against lazy no-good breeding machines are quite out of date, btw: since TANF replaced AFDC, practically no one can stay on the dole for more than a few years.
And why does it only bug you when poor people game the system?
Lu, look at your last comment,and see what I see:
"welfare whore"
"lazy no-good breeding machines"
"why does it only bug you when poor people game the system?"
Your inferences as to what I said are insulting. I would never use such vile expressions, and if you think that is how I see 'welfare moms' you are very much mistaken.
You also seem to think that I only am 'bugged' when poor people cheat.
Wrong.
I believe that everyone should act honestly in everything they do, whether they are poor or the President of the United States.
Remember, Lu-YOU may lie, cheat and steal all you like with a clear conscience. I have to answer to God. That keeps me on the straight and narrow (as much as possible-I still fail often).
have child without husband, need and get Welfare, must stay home to take care of child alone.... If you work, you lose the Welfare benefit, so you can make more money by having more kids.
I think the inferences were fair.
YOU may lie, cheat and steal all you like with a clear conscience.
I can do no such thing. (Speaking of insults.) I'd love to know on what basis you believe that.
Post a Comment