Dem strategist Rosen: Ann Romney ‘never actually worked a day in her life’ [VIDEO]

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are drawing an equivalency between someone on welfare staying home to take care of their children with someone with a household income staying home to take care of their children. YOU are the one who brought up the morality of welfare to try to show Romney as a hypocrite. And, you failed.

That said, I highly recommend and encourage the Democrats to take that approach this election. Please, please, please make the case for an even larger, more bloated bureacracy by having the government pay women to stay at home with their children. I beg you! Keep it up!!! 👍
I was just going by what I learned on this thread. Staying home is work and there is no one who can’t afford to do it if they really wanted to - is basically what I got from the preceding part of this discussion. 🤷
 
Mitt Romney was specifically talking about mothers who are welfare recipients getting back to work.

Hilary Rosen attacked Ann Romney for ‘never working a day’ in her life.’ Ann wasn’t a welfare recipient, she was a full time volunteer and helped her husband in two elections as well as bringing up their five children.

Not comparable remarks by Mitt Romney and Hilary Rosen.
Oh, so the validity of your claim to stay at homeness depends on your economic circumstances? There was a time I would have agreed, however, some posters have just been enlightening us that stay at homeness is all about choice…
 
I’m confused. What does money have to do with dignity? A high-end escort can earn nearly $1,000 an hour (according to this call girl). Does she have more or less dignity than a woman working a GM assembly line? Or the SAHM that earns $0, but raises 2 children?

Which I think is Romney’s point. It isn’t about how much money they are given. Rather, it is the manner in which they acquire said money. A welfare system detached from the human experience (such as SNAP, WIC, etc.) is absent that very thing that gives it meaning: charity. And a lack of charity (re: caritas) devalues the very nature of the thing. And that devaluation leads to a loss of dignity.

Now, getting out and working is a very different thing. Through the earning of one’s wages, one rightly feels the inherent good that associated with exchanging labor for wages. There is a direct personal attachment to the wages earned. That fosters a feeling of self worth and dignity. Government programs are incapable of providing that experience.
You explained that better than Romney did. He made a direct comparison between holding paid employment and having dignity, it seems to me. But now I can be generous and consider the whole context of what he was saying…Rosen of course is not Republican, so hopefully she’ll get the contextual interpretation too…?
 
  1. Why would she need to report an experience secondhand when there are women living the experience firsthand everyday?
  2. The context - now that we’re finally discussing that - clearly shows that both Romney and Rosen understand that in common parlance, “working” means performing certain functions for monetary compensation.
I think you are being disingenuous in your questions. Find out the context of the whole issue. Ann Romney is campaigning for her husband. As she campaigns she hears of the concerns of Americans around the country which amazingly enough seem to be the same whether from men and women. Ann Romney reports that when women speak to her they express concerns about jobs, the economy and debt (so do men for that matter). So that is why she is reporting what she heard on the campaign trail…because that is part of campaigning. Gee is that not obvious?

Second whether the term “working mother” means working for pay in common parlance is not the issue. Ms Rosen demeaned SAHMs, Ann Romney personally, and traditional families in general with her comments. Her point wasn’t so much to claim that SAHMs don’t “work” but that Mrs Romney as a SAHM and as a wealthy woman could not POSSIBLY be able to accurately report the concerns of the employed woman (is that a better term). Ironically as a Lesbian, activist, lobbyist, beltway bubble resident,Ms Rosen’s perspective is hardly representative of the average woman (employed or not) in America. But if you are on the Left, the truth never matters does it?

Lisa
 
Seekerz…why don’t Obama, Biden, Axelrod, et al agree with your take on Rosen? They’ve all condemned her comments, but you are vehemently defending her. Are Obama, Biden, Axelrod, et al wrong? Should they have defended her and trashed Ann Romney?
 
Oh, so the validity of your claim to stay at homeness depends on your economic circumstances? There was a time I would have agreed, however, some posters have just been enlightening us that stay at homeness is all about choice…
Hasn’t it always depended on your economic circumstances?
 
You explained that better than Romney did. He made a direct comparison between holding paid employment and having dignity, it seems to me. But now I can be generous and consider the whole context of what he was saying…Rosen of course is not Republican, so hopefully she’ll get the contextual interpretation too…?
Had Romney used that explanation (or similar variation), would you have accepted that?

And out of curiosity, do you agree with a position based upon such a statement?
 
Most moms can’t afford to stay at home with the children? Really?

My wife stayed home to raise our children for almost 20 years. I averaged about 42K/year throughout those years in a self employment fraught with risk. We put our kids through 12 years each of Catholic schools, as well as braces, dance lessons, music etc…We give to the Church according to our means. I don’t know how we have done it honestly.

We’ve never been to Disney World. We don’t have cable. Driving our current vehicles for 12 and 13 years each. We have priorities and stick to them. We wouldn’t change a thing.

It’s not -if- you can afford to live the life, it’s how badly you want to. If you cooperate with
God, truly, He will provide.
 
The far left wants to make the issue about rich vs. poor, when the true issue that will ultimately bankrupt the country into socialism is contributors vs. detractors. As romantic love is killed in favor of liberal hedonism, less people get married, deadbeat men are Free to take their money, time, and attention and spend it on themSelves, which detracts from the woman and child, and detracts from the taxpayer, who is forced to contribute in his place.
 
The far left wants to make the issue about rich vs. poor, when the true issue that will ultimately bankrupt the country into socialism is contributors vs. detractors.
What is a contributor? How would that fit into Catholic teachings on Just Wages?
 
What is a contributor? How would that fit into Catholic teachings on Just Wages?
Someone who charitably gives of themselves for the benefit of family and/or society, adding to the dignity of the human person on a personal, familial, and societal level.

Work is key for the development of dignity. Work can and should be seen as a ministry and avenue for evangelization. Just wages do not define the value of work. Just wages are just. We should always treat people justly.

Sloth on the other hand bears bad fruit.
 
Per the Daily Caller’s review of a CNN Anderson Cooper episode:
(snip)
“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 ones spreading it,” she said “With respect to the economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney’s right that ultimately women care more about the economic well being of their families and the like. But he doesn’t connect on that issue either.”

According to Rosen, Romney’s attempt to connect to women through his wife is inartful because Ann Romney’s lack of real-world experience makes her unable to connect to real women.

“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,’” she said. “Guess what? His wife has never actually 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.’

Rosen concluded, saying that the war may be about words but that the real issue is Romney’s antiquated view of women.
Get used to more of these personal attacks, folks. The GOPe picked the world’s most vulnerable candidate in history when they chose Mr. Romney. Not only do they have the legitimate issue of his flip-flop record (running to the left of Ted Kennedy in the '94 Senate race and his consistent support of abortion and homosexuals while governor of Massachusetts only to have a miraculous conversion when he decided to run for President), they’ve going to hit him below the belt like what you haven’t ever seen before, as well. Family, religion, etc. This little opening salvo from an Obama surrogate is mild and tame compared to what we’re going to see come September and October. Just be ready.

A real candidate, with enthusiastic support, might be able to withstand an old-fashioned Chicago style political beat-down like what is going to happen to this guy. But you Romney supporters: how many of you cast your lot with him, not because you like him, but because you thought “he’s the one most likely to be able to beat Obama?” By the time the Chicago machine is done with him, his own mother will think he has pan-fried infant with his eggs in the morning.

And, by the way, he won’t be able to hit back either: any surrogate starting a whisper campaign on his part will instantly be branded with the scarlet “R” word. They won’t touch that with a 10 foot pole.

All I’ve got to say is that Mr. Romney is the candidate supported by the GOPe. I wish them luck with that strategy.
There is, in actuality, a war on women being waged here. It is in the open and very thinly disguised. Somehow, most people have missed it. It is being waged by those who accuse OTHERS of waging a war on women.

Look at this statement.
According to Rosen, Romney’s attempt to connect to women through his wife is inartful because Ann Romney’s lack of real-world experience makes her unable to connect to real women.
Being with one’s children and raising and caring for them is not a real world experience? Absolute lunacy.

I’ve worked for large corporations and can tell you that little that happens there would be what I call “real world”, it is mostly surreal insanity.

Everything these people are saying is backwards, and a direct attack on real women who raise their own children here in the real world. It demeans them and serves to marginalize those who try to do the best for their children.
 
Most moms can’t afford to stay at home with the children? Really?

My wife stayed home to raise our children for almost 20 years. I averaged about 42K/year throughout those years in a self employment fraught with risk. We put our kids through 12 years each of Catholic schools, as well as braces, dance lessons, music etc…We give to the Church according to our means. I don’t know how we have done it honestly.

We’ve never been to Disney World. We don’t have cable. Driving our current vehicles for 12 and 13 years each. We have priorities and stick to them. We wouldn’t change a thing.

It’s not -if- you can afford to live the life, it’s how badly you want to. If you cooperate with
God, truly, He will provide.
I totally love you and your wife!
Talk about salt of the earth!
 
Seekerz…why don’t Obama, Biden, Axelrod, et al agree with your take on Rosen? They’ve all condemned her comments, but you are vehemently defending her. Are Obama, Biden, Axelrod, et al wrong? Should they have defended her and trashed Ann Romney?
I don’t believe for a minute that Ms. Rosen’s comments were her own alone. I think they were well-coordinated with the WH and gave a chance to bring up the Romney’s wealth, which in liberal eyes is a bad thing. We are going to hear more of this as the campaigns unfold. The only thing going for Obama right now is pitting one class against another and appealing to th class envy prevalent in too many of us.
 
I don’t believe for a minute that Ms. Rosen’s comments were her own alone. I think they were well-coordinated with the WH and gave a chance to bring up the Romney’s wealth, which in liberal eyes is a bad thing. We are going to hear more of this as the campaigns unfold. The only thing going for Obama right now is pitting one class against another and appealing to th class envy prevalent in too many of us.
I agree. I think Rosen was used to float the idea. Having failed, the rest of the administration was able to decry her remarks as not their own. Seekerz just didn’t get the memo. 🙂
 
I don’t believe for a minute that Ms. Rosen’s comments were her own alone. I think they were well-coordinated with the WH and gave a chance to bring up the Romney’s wealth, which in liberal eyes is a bad thing. We are going to hear more of this as the campaigns unfold. The only thing going for Obama right now is pitting one class against another and appealing to th class envy prevalent in too many of us.
I agree. I think Rosen was used to float the idea. Having failed, the rest of the administration was able to decry her remarks as not their own. Seekerz just didn’t get the memo. 🙂
Agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top