Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Feigned outrage over feigned outrage

Feigned outrage over feigned outrage

I disagree with most of what Matt Lewis says in his post The triumph of political games: 7 reasons to reject ‘Rosengate’:

The flap over Hillary Rosen’s comments  disparaging stay-at-home-moms like Ann Romney has gotten a  lot of play. I’ve been on the record (okay, on Twitter) mocking the  feigned Republican outrage. Something about it just didn’t sit well with me.

This, of course, puts me at odds with the Republican “team” who sees this as  a huge win (it is) for their side. It may be smart politics, but it’s still  damned depressing. It took me a while to figure out my visceral disgust at this  issue. It turns out, there are a lot of things to hate.

Lewis then goes on to list the seven reasons, which I will list with my commentary after the subtitle:

1. It’s a victim mentality.  No, it’s a firmly held reaction to Hilary Rosen’s demeaning comments which were part of a long history of attempts to marginalize conservative women.  Defending against the Obama campaign’s phony “war on women” campaign theme, implemented through liberal communications operatives like Rosen, is not playing the victim.  It’s standing up for what is right and just, and if we do not stand up for Ann Romney, then we don’t stand up for ourselves.  Have we learned absolutely nothing from the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin, in which many Republicans acquiesced?  No more.

2. It’s identity politics.  See response to No. 1.

3. Media “surrogates” aren’t necessarily representative of  anything.
Hilary Rosen is no mere surrogate, she is as tightly tied into the Democratic messaging machine as anyone.

4. It’s pandering.  See response to No. 1.

5. It’s the triumph of partisanship games.  See response to No. 1.

6. It’s phony, feigned outrage.  See response to No. 1.

7. This obscures real issues.  The belittling of conservative women is a real issue.

Rosen touched a nerve for a reason grounded in history.  A history we don’t want to see repeated daily through November 6.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Liberals extend their same characteristic gracious civility toward Ann Romney as they did for Sarah Palin – http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/it-begins-leftists-call-ann-romney-a-cnt-btch-whre-for-being-stay-at-home-mom/

Evidently these people just think that way.

SmokeVanThorn | April 13, 2012 at 10:36 am

Every one of Lewis’s “reasons” could be used to argue that Andrew Breitbart should not have done what he did.

Lewis’s piece is nothing more than a poor attempt to rationalize gutlessness.

Matt Lewis is an Andrew Sullivan Republican (if you catch my drift). There isn’t a single atom of conservatism in him. He has been an insufferable weasel from the very beginning when he was allowed to join Townhall.com and found himself immediately at odds with people like Dean Barnett who openly mocked him.

Why do conservatives allow such people to infiltrate their ranks? I can understand RINO Townhall.com because Republicans don’t have a moral compass but conservatives should know better.

    dmacleo in reply to Pasadena Phil. | April 13, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    I often call him out in comments sections of his articles. not so much lately as he just plain bores me.
    he was ok with the cain bashing, hes ok with this issue, never really saw an issue he wasn’t just fine with.
    IIRC I called him a coward a few times, it fits.

They’ve been getting away with it – as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin could not hit back. They had to take it, just as they would have had to take it if it was coming from vicious foreign leaders, like Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

So, the “Progressive/Regressives” were emboldened.

But you’re right, that’s only part of the story – the real story is the way this White House uses activist tactics to try to “control the Debate” – this started in some think tank long before Stephanopolous prematurely ejaculated “contraception” into the public debate. It’s very calculated, and Hilary Rosen is one of their sharpshooters, sent out to take out Romney by killing off his wife.

They plant these rhetorical phrases, like #WarOnWomen, and all of a sudden you see in your Facebook inbox dozens of little blurbs saying how ‘upset’ we are about those nasty Republicans. The phrases work – and for that reason, a huge pushback was long overdue and is a wonderful success. A battle on, in a yet to be long war,

They were exposed by Stephanopolous, again in the launch against Rush, AGAIN in the launch against what they though was a white guy in Zimmerman, and AGAIN in this salvo against Ann Romney. It’s very clear how they play, now people have to let them know how they feel about such sleazy, dishonest, degrading and divisive (and vicious) way of doing business.

Obama’s going to lose 60/40. It’s going to be a landslide. Because people DON’T like this.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Rose. | April 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    LATELY – Conservative women have been responding with the Truth – exposing – not returning the same vitriol, vituperation, vehemence and vileness, but instead responding with verity and virtue:
    ShePAC AD – Conservative women fight back – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5ISKQD7ytSk
    UNDEFEATED MOVIE TRAILER – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXutPYdNh7U&feature=player_embedded
    REAL GAME CHANGE – SarahPAC fights back – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCo4cnA2Ez4&feature=player_embedded

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Rose. | April 13, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    PERHAPS we need to STEP BACK, take a deep breath and look at this whole thing with eyes wide open.

    What does it tell us when the MSM media turns against Hilary Rosen instead of skewering the Romneys for their vast wealth – which is what they usually do?

    You better bet Rosen was surprised/shocked at the reaction being negative against her instead of vice/versa. She probably expected diplomatic immunity that is usually extended for leftist lesbians…but no – they media immediately had Ann Romney on the air the next day to respond.

    What the reaction may tell us is that THE FIX IS IN – Obama is out and Romney is in.

    Hmm.

      Kenshu Ani in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      I wouldn’t say that “the fix is in.”

      The current version of the mainstream media will never truly support a Republican over a Democrat. If Romney makes a slight mistake, they will plaster it on the air 24/7. Whereas they will cover for Obama. Notice how all the blame from the MSM has been squarely put on Rosen; they even forced her to apologize so that they could keep as much of the mess as possible off of Obama.

      No, I think that seeing the media turn on Rosen was little more than CYA maneuvering. They know that they will face a firestorm from true media watchdogs (i.e. Legal Insurrection, Breitbart, etc.) so they are trying to set up an example that they can point to as proof of their “non-partisan” reporting. This is especially important after NBC’s Editgate.

      Of course, it helps that the MSM considers Rosen to be expendable. They rushed to throw her under the bus, so that Obama wouldn’t dirty his hands doing it himself.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Rose. | April 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Interesting article on Obama paying less taxes than his secreatary.
    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/04/13/obama-pay-secretary/
    But what caught my eye was this “quote of the day” over in the right-hand column. Cute!

    “It’s true, I’ve never worked a full day. I’ve also never slept a full night.”
    – Ann Romney
    A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote

What everyone is ignoring is that the Obama machine attack on married women ignores the fact that most “stay at home mothers” are deeply impacted and aware of economics. They are partners with their spouse in the economics of their family. They made an important economic calculation in choosing to “invest” in this partnership, and every two weeks as the paycheck comes in or does not come in, they experience the return on the investment. How the economy and Obama’s disastrous policy effects this return through taxes, risk, growth prospects, etc., directly impacts the budget the mom has to work with to keep up her end of the partnership, which generally means raising the kids, managing the household, often managing the savings, and making sure there are proceeds left over to provide an enjoyable lifestyle for herself and her spouse. This is why the Rosen/Obama Campaign attack on Romney is so outrageous, because it fundamentally belittles the experience and knowledge of every stay at home mom and the sophisticated decisions and economic management that every “stay at home mom” must accomplish in partnership with the breadwinner spouse.

    stevewhitemd in reply to BarDav. | April 13, 2012 at 11:52 am

    I’m a physician, and one of my colleagues, a female physician working full time in our academic practice, recently noted how much more productive she is because she has a ‘wife’. To my raised eyebrow (I know she’s married to a man, another physician, and they have gorgeous children), she responded that she employs a full-time ‘household manager’, a combination nanny, shopper, cook and light-duty cleaner. That person runs the household for her and her husband, and my partner acknowledges that this person is essentially her ‘wife’. Having this person allows her to do her job as a high-level doctor.

    It’s interesting to think about this; my wife (my true wife, my marriage partner) is a stay at home mom with our child, and over the years we together have been a whole lot more than we would have been separately, or if she had worked. Our household is better, our family is stronger, our marriage is better, and our child is better off. We didn’t miss (much) the income she would have brought in but we sure would have missed the stability and strength of having someone at home.

    I’ll bet Mitt and Anne Romney feel the same way, and even if the Romneys were fortunate and wealthy enough so as (like my physician colleague) to hire good help for the household, they still did better with Anne at home by her choice.

    I confess I really don’t understand what the Obama team was thinking by going after Anne Romney and, by extension, those women who stay at home to raise children and make the households work. Perhaps it’s the socialist war on the family as suggested by Ragspierre, or perhaps it’s just a desperate, cynical political calculation. But I really don’t get how a politician expects to win an election by insulting a substantial portion of the voters.

    tazz in reply to BarDav. | April 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Amen! Perfectly stated.

Lewis doesn’t get it at all.

Going back to first principles, the Frankfurt School “thinkers” realized that to foster a Communist revolution in the U.S., they had to foster a war on the American culture, exploiting (and creating) every possible fissure they could.

The MOST essential component of American culture is and was the family. This was NEVER lost on the Collective.

Consequently, at least since the 60s, the American family as it was understood…and each component player…has been under attack on every possible level of society; governmental, academic, popular culture, and the “avant garde”.

Rosen simply aped the Collectivist dogma, directed at Ann Romney (who stood in the role of a prominent figurehead for the “traditional” American family) that non-Collectivists are stupid, ill-informed, selfish drones who have nothing to contribute to the national dialog.

It was just another expression of, “Shut up, she explained”.

Pushing back against that has ZIP to do with identity politics. I has all to do with the existential threat to the American culture that is the Collective in the U.S., and fighting it.

Politics ain’t beanbag.

I agree with Rosen. I think this is like the Great Contraceptive War. We won round one, but lost the war. Then again, I’m not falling for anything that comes out of Romney’s fakery. You cannot hide the fact that Romney is completely out of touch with the rest of the world. Without getting into a “mommy war” which is a crock, this is about the GOP nominee presumptive, who is so unsure of himself and so arrogant that he refuses to admit his wealth.

Ann Romney has been wealthy all her life. She does not have the same world view as a woman who is struggling to make ends meet. Sorry, but you don’t. She has lived a life of maids, cooks, gardeners, and nannies. Her narrative is not the same as a stay at home mom who has three little kids, a mortgage, limited income, and must struggle just to survive. She cannot even comprehend what that is like. I can’t. Unless you have been in that person’s shoes, none of us can.

The same holds true with the life Ann Romney has lived. I think the average conservative refuses to admit that people who are wealthy have a much easier time in life (in some ways). My mother never “worked” a day in her life. She’s always had help. My grandmother had “help”. They don’t know what a single mother, barely living above the poverty level must endure.

It’s not a criticism of Ann Romney. It is a criticism of conservatives who want to make her narrative the same as the 99%. It doesn’t work. Eventually this entire “war” is going to backfire on the GOP. It always does.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

    Ragspierre in reply to sjreidhead. | April 13, 2012 at 11:16 am

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Romney

    Huh.

    So, we cannot understand each other unless we have lived exactly the same.

    I’ll just be damned.

    But then, so would the country, if that were true.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to sjreidhead. | April 13, 2012 at 11:32 am

    But you miraculously overcame your privileged background and now truly understand the downtrodden, right?

    I agree. By refusing to admit something doesn’t mean that it isn’t so. The Romney’s were the perfect candidates for the class envy machine to capitalize with. It was incredibly stupid to push this failed candidate for so many reasons.

    Axelrod is going to milk this for all that it is worth. Why give your mortal enemy an unnecessary mallet to bash you with?

    I do have another problem with Ann Romney though. Particularly her partnering with Mao lover and Obama White House dirtbag Anita Dunn. Still think that the progressive little mommy identifies with you and is on your side? I don’t. Like Ann is on video stating, “All our friends are Democrats.”

    I would not have a problem defending Ann Romney if the GOPe had supported Palin. However, this is just more proof that they only defend someone “who is one of us.” Apparently bashing conservatives is still fair game as far as the GOPe is concerned.

    I see this as a distraction to unite. I’m not an elite one of us. And I say Ann Romney you and your husband and the GOPe sat back and allowed Sarah Palin to be accused of the shooting in Arizona. Now I’m supposed to care. Well I don’t. What did you expect? First they came for Palin. Now they came for you and you are surprised. Who is stupid?

      quiznilo in reply to JRD. | April 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm

      Can you not see this as it is, it is an attack on the conservative ideas, and stable, traditional families. It is an attack on the institution of motherhood itself.

      Do you really want to pick which mothers you wish to defend, because in the end, you’re defending conservative ideas. Ann Romney is merely a proxy.

    Her narrative is not the same as a stay at home mom who has three little kids, a mortgage, limited income, and must struggle just to survive.

    The thing about class-warfare (and the sin of envy, from which it springs) is that there is always someone better off than you. Someone has always had it easier. AND, someone is always worse off. Offhand I’d say that to half the world your little I’ve struggled so haaaard scenario above would be a comparable paradise.

      dmacleo in reply to K. | April 13, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      most people have made better life choices than I have, per some I am supposed to be jealous of those people.
      thats what all this boils down to, Anne made better choices than they did and they are jealous.

    If you’re wondering where sjreidhead is coming from, especially when she makes broad-brush claims as the royal “we” of modern conservatism (“I agree with Rosen. I think this is like the Great Contraceptive War. We won round one, but lost the war”), go check out her blog. She claims (among other things) that “‘normal’ Republicans [are] being marginalized as the extreme far right attempts to become the new normal. There are very few actual Republicans who blog on a regular basis. The Pink Flamingo is one of these blogs.”

    So you’re all stupid knuckle-dragging bitter-clinger extremists, you stupid knuckle-dragging bitter-clinger extremists, and she’s one of the 1% who Knows Better. So there ya go.

I stopped reading Lewis a while back because he always left me with the question of “who died and put this AH in charge?”

1. It’s a victim mentality. ANOTHER IDIOT WHO ESPOUSES THE “REAL MEN” LAY DOWN AND LET THEMSELVES BE WALKED ON & KICKED BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

2. It’s identity politics. – ALL POLITICS IS IDENTITY POLITICS – WHY ELSE DO WE POLL DIFFERENT FOCUS GROUPS?

3. Media “surrogates” aren’t necessarily representative of anything. WHEN THEY ALLOW THOSE SENDING THEM OUT TO PRETEND TO BE ABOVE THE FRAY THEY ARE INDEED REPRESENTING SOMEONE ELSE.

4. It’s pandering. YOU CALL IT PANDERING – OTHERS MIGHT CALL IT ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONCERNS OF SOME OTHER GROUP. OF COURSE MATT NEVER STRUCK ME AS SOMEONE WHO PARTICULARILY WORRIED ABOUT ANYONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF SO HE WOULDN’T BE INTERESTED IN SOMEONE ELSE’S CONCERNS GETTING ATTENTION.

5. It’s the triumph of partisanship games. POLITICS IS PARTISAN

6. It’s phony, feigned outrage. APPARENTLY IT’S ONLY VALID OUTRAGE IF/WHEN MATT’S OX GETS GORED.

7. This obscures real issues. THE REAL SELLING POINT – ONCE AGAIN SOMEONE DECIDES WHAT ISSUES WARRENT BEING ADDRESSED AND IF IT’S NOT ON MATT’S LIST IT DOESN’T MATTER. A LOT OF BLOG COMMENTERS LIKE TO SAY THAT – AS IF THEY’VE RECEIVED STONE TABLETS DETAILING WHAT ISSUES ARE REAL AND WHAT ARE A WASTE OF TIME. MANY FISCAL CONSERVATIVES DO THAT REGARDING SOCIAL ISSUES.

Once again we see the vile left deploy one of its agitprop prostitutes on a mission to ATTACK A FAMILY MEMBER of a political enemy. This is a tactic the despicable left shows no sign of relinquishing.

Take after the political candidate all you want, this is the big leagues. But dammit leave the family out of this!

Politics of personal destruction indeed. Pigs.

    punfundit in reply to punfundit. | April 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    (In the interest of more or less full disclosure, I point out that I am NOT a Romney supporter. Not even slightly. I am opposed merely to the daily, relentless pursuit of bilious effluvium perpetrated by the merchants of viciousness which is the left.)

It was very clear that Rosen was talking economic issues, if you bothered to listen to her comments. And Ann does not understand what it’s like for most Americans who aren’t married to someone with several hundred millions in net assets.

It’s too bad you’re such a filthy liar, Professor. Who does pay you to lie for the GOP, and how much do you get paid?

    Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 11:23 am

    “The couple’s first son was born in 1970[12] while both were undergraduates at Brigham Young,[15] living in a $75-a-month basement apartment,[16] which Mitt had transferred to based upon her request.[13]”

    Again, does one have to live EXACTLY the same life to be able to identify with other people?

    Of course not. Otherwise, Barackah Hussain Obama could NEVER identify with a poor, minority, single mother living anywhere, could he…???

    The rest of your post shows you are losing your “mind”. I can empathize (see…????), as you’ve watched the events of the last several years.

      I have no sympathy for these people. My cousin and her husband started off in a sub-basement apartment with a baby. They struggled so she could stay at home and raise her children. They used my cousin’s small trust to put a downpayment on a house. My cousin became a stay at home mom. Life was decent until her husband was diagnosed with MS and they took her parents in to live with them due to the parents’ financial situation. Her husband was required to give up one of his jobs. By this time my cousin had given up her career to be a full time mom. She had a minimum wage job she enjoyed, but lost due to the recession. They were forced to declare bankruptcy. Her husband struggles with debilitating MS, but works, constantly. She is working sev part time jobs. Don’t tell me Ann Romney even understands my cousin’s life. My cousin and her husband refuse to take any sort of help or assistance, and they could. They are struggling to survive. I have no sympathy for someone who dares to say she knows what life is like for the little people.

      A very wise Christian minister from Wales once said that a person must be willing to get into someones actual physical state and situation to understand them – the old walk a mile in their shoes thing. No, I don’t have children, and never will. I have had a very comfortable life, but I have also known what it is like to struggle. It’s not fun. I don’t know what it is like for a friend who agonizes over her son who is a drunk, or her daughter who is bi-polar. No, I can’t comprehend it. I have compassion, but I have never been in her situation.

      Mitt Romney is a trust-fund baby. So was I (only mine was much less). Sorry, but he had a cushion to fall back on. To deny this is like everything else his supporters do – they deny he is a liberal, that he can’t tell the truth, and he can’t be trusted. Every part of this man’s life has been prepared and groomed.

      Sorry, I don’t accept this poor insulted Ann Romney litany. It’s going to get very old, very fast, and backfire on the GOP.

      SJR
      The Pink Flamingo

        stevewhitemd in reply to sjreidhead. | April 13, 2012 at 12:05 pm

        Forgive me for pointing this out, SJR, but you seem to think it’s okay to insult people for making choices on how they live their life.

        So would it have been okay to insult your cousin for her choices?

        No. Of course not.

        Neither is it okay to insult Mrs. Romney. Yes, they had money. So what? Is that all that matters? I must say your rant reads like something that would fit over at the Daily Kos without a problem.

        We won’t know this for sure, but one gets the sense that had life dealt Anne Romney a terrible hand (like was dealt to your cousin), Mrs. Romney would have handled it with grace. She might have been frustrated, she might have cried out at times, but she wouldn’t be a nasty, bitter person who would lash out at others for her own misfortune. There is something authentic about her.

        So you don’t have any understanding of the ‘litany’. Apparently you don’t see that the ‘litany’ isn’t about Anne Romney the person, it’s about politics and tearing good people down. Is that what you want in life? And if so, where does that leave you and your cousin?

          Wait – my cousin’s husband CHOSE to contract MS? My cousin made the choice of caring for her elderly and broken parents rather than shipping them off to a nursing home. She could have made things easier and put them on the street, I guess.

          I understand, completely. Having MS and losing one’s income because of the debilitating disease is a life choice.

          Every part of Ann Romney’s life has been cushioned by money, as has been most of mine. To say that she and her husband suffered in college, not having much money is like saying my sister and I suffered the same way when we lived in an apartment in Atlanta. We had the comfort of knowing if something bad happened, our parents would be there to help us. The Romneys had the same thing. To deny it is to be completely out of touch with the reality of their lives. Ann Romney was raised in the lap of luxury. I doubt her parents would have allowed her to suffer too much, or to go without anything. Mine never did. Maybe, I had better parents that the Romneys did.

          My sister and I lived a different life than our neighbor there in the apartments. She had to work for everything, had no help from home. Sure, we were required to make do, get jobs, and not expect everything to be given to us. That’s called life. BUT – like Ann Romney, we knew if something went wrong, our parents would be there to help us.

          Like Ann Romney, I was raised with “help”. I know the kind of life she has lived. She can no more identify with a young mother who has three kids and a husband struggling to make ends meet that I can. We haven’t been there. We can say we understand, but do we? I am smart enough to know that I have compassion and caring for people, but I am also wise enough to know that I don’t understand what someone like that is going through. To say otherwise is just plain foolish.

          SJR
          The Pink Flamingo

        Good Christ SJR, listen to yourself!

        I could walk a couple of blocks from my house and easily find a dozen people who would salivate at the fortunate lives you’ve described in your sob story.

        I could then bus those people across town and find a dozen more that they wouldn’t trade places with in a million years.

        I could then fly the whole lot to any of a number of US cities where the ghettos would make the poor sections in my town look like Club Med.

        And I could then take a sampling of all these folks to coutless southern hemisphere slums around the world and I bet every one of them would be clamoring to get back home.

        Even with all the suffering you’ve cataloged, SJR, you have far more in common with the Romneys than you do with bottom 70% (if not more)of the Earth’s 6+ billion. 5 bucks says that to them you sound no different than what you make Mrs. Romney out to be.

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to sjreidhead. | April 13, 2012 at 1:11 pm

        Someone leading “a very comfortable life” but who is unable to find a way to assist a struggling family member assails Ann Romney for an alleged lack of understanding and empathy. Amazing.

        PGlenn in reply to sjreidhead. | April 13, 2012 at 2:05 pm

        I don’t get your point. Rosen said, “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues . . .” Are you defending that statement as fair/reasonable? If so, let’s consider the logical implications of your position.

        First, you cannot really know how hard Mrs. Romney worked as a stay-at-home mother. Even if she had help (house cleaning, nanny, etc.), she might have worked very hard in addition to that help, giving her children extra exposure to educational resources/experiences, volunteering outside the home, helping other mothers in her network, caring for her elders, etc. Because you and Rosen don’t know how hard she worked, the implication is that homemaking = not work.

        A more generous interpretation might be that you’re suggesting it’s “not really work” if A). the stay-at-home mom had a choice, because B). the family had ample financial resources. But that’s implying an interesting defition of “work.” Hypthetically, if a lower-income stay-at-home single mom lived with her mother and grandmother, who handled the vast majority of housekeep and childcare duties, while she used public assistance monies/credits to sit around all day drinking, smoking, and watching Young and the Restless – by your definition – by default, she’d be a harder worker than Mrs. Romney. Conversely, if a working mom got paid $60,000 by a city government to mostly drink coffee and socialize, with her kids in daycare, and her ex-husband taking the kids two out 4 weekends every month, she’d be a harder worker than Mrs. Romney, too.

        Second, since you/Rosen obviously don’t believe any of that, we’re left with the other part – that Mrs. Romney “never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues” [that other moms in particular and/or women in general have to deal with]. Okay, you’re implying that we – humans – can relate to only those economic situations that correspond to our particular economic experiences. That logic implies, however, policymakers would be equipped to address only those economic matters of which they (and their nuclear family) has personally, directly experienced, themsleves.

        Is that what you and Rosen are suggesting? Otherwise, what exactly are you saying?

        SJR

        Unlike you, Romney was not a trust fund baby. It is well known that his father, who started out poor, made sure his children worked for everything they got. Furthermore, what Romney did inherit from his father was not kept, but was instead donated to either charity or his church.

        Your posts certainly contain much bitterness and misconceptions.

        DocWahala in reply to sjreidhead. | April 13, 2012 at 8:36 pm

        The “outrage” (as phony as you think it is) is NOT about single moms, but the disparaging attitude about SAHMs.

        Life is hard for single moms. No one doubts that, no one denies that. But the SAHM most often I also “wife”…as in, part of a COMPLETE family,

        Conservatives see “family” as ideal, liberals want to lionize the single mom…saying this model of family is equal to the intact family. But in the next breath they paint a picture of victimhood. So which is it? Equal or victim?

        SJR, by your own admission, you say unless a person walks in the same shoe, they can not understand that person, …so…. If you are not a SAHM, how are you then able to stand qualified to criticize SAHM for their “phony” outrage? It would seem the premise for your own criticisi

          DocWahala in reply to DocWahala. | April 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm

          (sorry, must have hit wrong button)
          It would seem seem your own criticism stands against you for the very same reason.

    Sanddog in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 11:29 am

    To be honest, why should I as a small business owner be concerned about the economic hardships of a single mother? Are they concerned about me?

    We need a system that treats everyone fairly. At that point, your economic struggles boil down to the personal choices YOU make and no one should have to subsidize the choices made by another.

      Ragspierre in reply to Sanddog. | April 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm

      I agree generally with your second point, but not your first.

      Adam Smith was a very high-level thinker, and a moralist. He understood that “self-interest” would often impel us to do things for others.

      In all of history, there has never been a people more exercised to be charitable than Americans. One of the hallmarks of the turn of the 19th to 20th Century was the explosion of charitable, private organizations, largely driven by middle-class Americans.

      We WILL and DO help each other. Ann Romney has been a very fine example of that, if you read up on her.

        Sanddog in reply to Ragspierre. | April 14, 2012 at 1:16 am

        Charity at the end of a gun, which is what our redistribution system is, does not benefit society as a whole or the individual forced to make the “contribution”. If I transfer some of my money to another willingly, I get to choose who I support and I can also choose not to support someone who is unwilling to make an effort to improve their situation.

          quiznilo in reply to Sanddog. | April 14, 2012 at 10:25 am

          *sniff* *sniff*

          I smell Libertarian.

          We–as a society–have deemed a stable two-parent (man and a woman) family as the best way to raise children. This has been established by scientific studies enough that it’s almost considered a fact, except by the willfully-ignorant social engineers and progressives. As such, we reward marriage with special perks and benefits in order to promote it.

          I don’t see anyone here promoting single-motherhood. The debate was whether stay-at-home mothers knew enough about economics to have a valid opinion on the subject. I think most people (myself included) think that they do, and a few paid (or unpaid) obama-trolls think otherwise.

    MaDr in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Yea, we need to be informed and lectured to by the financially under-priviledged. Like Hilary Rodham Clinton. Nancy Pelosi. Elizabeth Edwards. Teresa Heinz-Kerry. That’s the ticket!

    stevewhitemd in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Jimbo3, is it necessary for you to come into the good Professor’s parlor and insult him?

    Is that what passes for progressive discourse?

    Perhaps you should get a job working for the DNC. Perhaps Ms. Rosen needs an intern.

      Ragspierre in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm

      “Is that what passes for progressive discourse?”

      Pretty much.

      Eventually, the strain of pretending to be rational breaks them.

      jimbo3 in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 13, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      Here’s the transcript. It’s clear she was talking about working for pay.

      With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is 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. 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.’

      Guess what? His wife has actually never 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 why do we worry about their future.

      So I think that, yes, it’s about these positions and yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions. But there’s something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. He just seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women and I think that comes across and I think that that’s going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn’t really see us as equal.

    raven in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Why is Ann Romney less qualified to comment on economic issues than Barack Obama is to run one?

    Has Ann Romney misrepresented and misspent $800 billion in “Stimulus” funds to produce the entirely opposite results as promised? Has Ann Romney consistently misrepresented the costs and effects of a $1.5 trillion healthcare takeover? Or did Barack Obama manage a household of five children over 30 years, i.e., make the numberless purchasing and household care requirements for such a micro-economy? Had Barack Obama ever managed ANYTHING or ANY economy of ANY kind when he was elected to run the world’s largest?

    If you gave the benefit of the doubt to Barack Obama to manage the world’s largest economy without evidence of a single economic qualification or experience managing an economy of any kind, why would you not, as a fair-minded and compassionate liberal who believes in the inherent worth and dignity of the individual, accord Ann Romney – who clearly has more practical economic experience than Barack Obama — similar benefit of the doubt to at least comment on it and then confine critique to specific points she made instead of attempting to discredit her qualifications to even speak?

      WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | April 13, 2012 at 4:32 pm

      Very well said raven. If you are, in the coming months, as fierce in your assault on Obama as you were on Romney in recent months, I will both be eager to read your comments and happy to have you on the same side of the issues.

      punfundit in reply to raven. | April 14, 2012 at 4:50 am

      Savage away, raven. The rational savage is the scourge of tyrants. My compliments.

    scfanjl in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    When you resort to name calling, we know we’ve won the argument!

    Way to go Prof!

I’m wondering if Rosen was letting out a trial balloon to see how the issue would fly for the general campaign.

George Snufflelofagus floated the contraceptive issue on his TV show with Romney and look at the mileage they got out of it.

Media “surrogates” aren’t necessarily representative of anything. Hilary Rosen is no mere surrogate, she is as tightly tied into the Democratic messaging machine as anyone.

I almost spewed coffee all over my keyboard this morning when that partisan hack, Jamee Dupree, didn’t even MENTION HER NAME on WDBO 580 Orlando…just said a “supporter” of Obummer.

Yes, Jamee, we all know what a hack you are, but really? Hillary Rosen visited the WH more than 30 times in the past 3 1/2 LONG years…yeah…JUST an Obama supporter.

Matt Lewis? Obviously another partisan hack….but from our own side…how sweet!

I will NEVER forget what the Left did to Sarah Palin and any other conservative woman who dared to speak of the great gifts that came from raising children, whether the child was exceptional or not (and not aborting them on demand).

Guess what, Libs??? You started it. Period.

WE WILL FIGHT BACK. YOU WILL LOSE.

It’s standing up for what is right and just, and if we do not stand up for Ann Romney, then we don’t stand up for ourselves. Have we learned absolutely nothing from the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin, in which many Republicans acquiesced? No more.

Bullies do tend to get upset when victims fight back.

It really is overdue for Republicans and conservatives to stand together and refuse to tolerate the insults directed at conservative women, whether it’s Sarah Palin, Anne Romney, Michelle Malkin, or any other woman. It should be a point of pride for us to defend women, minorities, gays, whoever stands with us, believes as we believe, and work as we work to make our country better.

We should be loud, clever (like Breitbart) and humorous (like Rush) about it. But we cannot afford to roll over anymore. We can no longer afford the David Brooks approach, the Peggy Noonan approach, the “we’ll try to get along and only give away 80% of what we’re fighting for so as to get the other 20%, maybe” approach.

I don’t mind reaching across the aisle to work with decent people who are sincere in being willing to work with me. But I’m tired of dealing with rabid, nasty socialists who are interested only in subjugating me.

Time, long past time, to fight back. Defending Anne Romney is a start. Let’s stay at it.

    quiznilo in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Awesome! These progessive liberals should remember, never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

    SPREAD THE WORD!

    WoodnWorld in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Also very well said Dr. White. If there is any issue that would make me overjoyed to put aside my (relatively) petty differences with conservatives of different persuasions, it would have to be the common defense of the conservative woman.

Rush Limbaugh…multimillionaire and philanthropist…

is today conducting his annual “Cure-0-Thon”.

But he never had cancer.

Huh.

Midwest Rhino | April 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Ann Romney has experience managing a household, which in her case involves several workers (no doubt). She may not be a small business owner exactly, but what percentage of working women really gain insight into the economy in their 40 hour a week job? Most are just getting through their day as a nurse or office worker … not making economic policy decisions.

And who do Democrats have to help guide the president? We know Obama said his goals and the union goals are the same, and he has Trumka as a regular visitor.

Obama has been vociferous about redistribution of wealth, and has said reparations do not go far enough. This lines up with his economic adviser Rev. Wright. They specialize in a race based economy.

Ann Romney spent most of her adult life in the real world, unlike operatives like Rosen that live off propagandizing the public.

    How many people in the “real world” have several servants?

      Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      Put up your support of all your “servants”.

      Tell us if John Kerry lives in the “real world”?

      Nanny Pelosi…??? (I know. That is a trick question…)

      Midwest Rhino in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm

      The “real world” private sector … with workers that need oversight, as in any small business. The Romney’s certainly had money to manage … which happens in the real world.

      The political world of Rosen or the Obama’s is different. Obama is a professional rabble rouser … teaching and now using tactics of a subversive. And then the Obama’s used government to pass out favors, usually for something cushy in return, like Michelle’s $300K job. The Obama’s government supported world is much different that the Romney’s real world.

      But my main point is that most women don’t get economic insight on their job … they just work. Wouldn’t being married to a man that went to Harvard for business and reworks businesses for a living qualify Ann better than the average high school teacher.

      Rosen’s message was nonsense and vicious …

      WMCB in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm

      Please point me to any proof whatsoever that Ann Romney had bevies of servants while raising her children.

      Well I know two “people”. #44 and Mrs. #44 and they just adore that lifestyle, golfing, vacationing, shopping and on and on all with “several servants”.

      punfundit in reply to jimbo3. | April 14, 2012 at 5:02 am

      I have people I pay to cook my food for me (restaurant)
      I have people I pay to maintain my vehicle for me (service garage)
      I have people I pay to arrange entertainment for me (cable company)
      I have people I pay to ensure I can communicate with anyone I choose (mobile provider)
      I have people I pay to fly me from here to there (airline)
      Etc.

      Turns out I have a $#!+load of servants. How about you?

Rosen’s comments about Ann Romnney and the piling on, then the pull-back from the party and the White House reveal that the Democrats know that they overplayed their propaganda “War on Women” campaign.

It’s going to be a bad, bad six months for Democrats. They are trying to hold back the water with their collective fingers when the damn is about to burst. If we conservatives, Republicans, and Tea party independents can get our act together, we can wash away 99% of what Obama has done and signed into law next year.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/12/president-obamas-budget-priority-eliminate-the-d-c-voucher-program/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Sometimes, a person really shows just how much they care about the poor and minority kids…

As opposed to a tiny cadre of unionized education monopolists.

    School vouchers… we know the teachers unions hate the idea of parents having the decision where their children’s education dollars could go.

    Mark my words, if the Obamacare mandate is upheld, Republicans should force a federal-to-state school voucher program right down the Democrats’ and their teacher union constituents’ collective throats. There’s more precedent using the commerce clause for education funding than Obamacare in the first place.

      Ragspierre in reply to McCoy2k. | April 13, 2012 at 1:03 pm

      And note that the cost is a rounding error…actually a FRACTION of a rounding error…in the larger education waste of money…

Right on, Professor!!

@jimbo3:

Feigned outrage over “Feigned outrage over feigned outrage”?

    jimbo3 in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Read the actual transcript and explain how any reasonable interpretation of it says that she meant anything than working for pay.

    I don’t see it–unless you take the one sentence completely out of context.

    So I will continue to believe that the Professor is a filthy liar. If he misconstrued a court decision this way in a brief, he’d get called on the carpet by a judge.

      Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 6:31 pm

      Why haven’t you QUOTED the salient transcript…???

      Makes me say…Hmmmm…

      Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | April 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm

      “‘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.’”

      Guess what? His wife has actually never 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 why do we worry about their future.”

      So… Mrs. Romney LISTENS to what people tell her, and passes that along to Mr. Romney.

      She NEVER claims IDENTITY with the women she LISTENS to.

      But ELITIST Rosen DOES. SHE knows ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL about what “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 why do we worry about their future.”

      And YOU are calling other people “Liar”…???

      What a moron.

      “So I will continue to believe that the Professor is a filthy liar.”

      Of course you will.

      It’s all you guys have got left.

      As they say on Law & Order, “I’m sorry for your loss.”

Professor, with all due respect, I can sum it up with five words. “They are losing the argument”.

This idea that we should’nt fight on secondary or smaller issues is pure nonsense. The left uses our surrender on these smaller issues to gain momemntum that they use when the bigger issues come up for debate. Notice the attacks on the Paul Ryan budget using the “war on women” meme …

They establish a pattern i.e. “war on women” so that if the right refuses to fight them on it they then use the meme on the bigger issues and claim it is a pattern …

kill the “war om women” meme and you defang their nonsense on the budget issue …

we have to kill these issues in their infancy so they don’t grow up to be meme’s that the left then uses to beat us over the head with …

examples of these sort of baseless and dishonest memes …

the GOP is the party of the rich …

the Tea Party is racist …

the GOP doesn’t care about minorities / poor …

the GOP is anti-science …

all of these memes are based on lies and distortions and should have been squashed early on …

    Ragspierre in reply to dorsaighost. | April 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…

    And we can walk and chew gum, too…

KEVIN WILLIAMSON: Ann Romney is economically a hell of a lot smarter than Hilary Rosen. “It is difficult to put a dollar value on parental time, but it is clear that to the Romneys one hour of Mrs. Romney’s time at home with the family was worth far more than one hour in C-level wages; further, a 2,000-hour annual block of time invested in earning C-level wages would have fundamentally changed the character of the Romney household for the worse, while providing negligible economic benefit. Instead, she provided the family with a critical good that Mr. Romney, for all his riches, could not acquire without her cooperation. If we think of the household as a household, Ann Romney’s decision to stay at home makes perfect economic sense: Her decision to be a full-time mother enormously improved the quality of life for Mr. Romney, for the couple’s five sons, and — let’s not overlook this critical factor — for Mrs. Romney herself.” Comparative advantage.

Takeaway: “Ms. Rosen’s remarks were criticized as being snide; the real problem is that they were stupid.” Making the rubble bounce . . . .
—InstaPundit

I LOVE sound economics…!!!

I strongly suspect that Rosen was so eager to make a completely unrelated point, and take an apparent easy gotcha, that she did not think through what she actually was saying.

That point has got completely waylaid in the tangents.

It wasn’t about Ann Romney at all.

It’s about that Mitt Romney is a pernicious liar and bullshitter. When he says that he asks Ann about women’s issues, you know, and I know, and we ALL know that he’s just flippin’ more of his constant, unrelenting, pathological, continuous horseshit. He lies and lies and lies. HE set Ann up for this, because he LIED.

I was blocked by @MattKLewis because I questioned his “silly outrage” comments on twitter. I had followed him for months beginning when I first started twitter. Now I understand the arguments concerning reporters or bloggers that pretend to be Conservative but who really want to keep their elitist position within the Washington D.C. Liberal social network.

Uncle Sam – You say that : “You better bet Rosen was surprised/shocked at the reaction being negative against her instead of vice/versa. She probably expected diplomatic immunity that is usually extended for leftist lesbians…but no – they media immediately had Ann Romney on the air the next day to respond.”

I don’t see it this way. Rosen has consulted with Axelrod more than the many times she met with him in the White House. She is being paid to say EXACTLY what she said (it came from Axelrod’s brain, not hers) and her faux apology was also scripted by Axelrod. Everythin is going as exactly planned for the Obama campaign.

Their goal is to hit the public every day or at least every week with a new divisive issue that gets folks all excited. Look for the great Obama apology tour right around October – “I distanced myself from my enthusiastic supporters – what more could I do?”

Nothing about this campaign team is no planned – including the way the public will most likely respond to their mischievous splintering and intentional “wedging” among various classes in American society.

They are orchestrating the ulitmate “haves” vs “have nots” campaign ever run in American politics. Marxism 101.
By the way – this started more than a few major revolutions in the last century.

Read today’s comments from Politico’s Vandehei today from Morning Joe: (verbatim quote)

And there’s a big danger for President Obama in that they’ve become so insanely political in an insanely political culture. Almost everything they do now is either, is targeted at a specific sub-set of voters that they want to win. Everything’s going to be about Hispanics and women. Watch every single day. You’re going to see some event, some message, aimed directly at them. Not about having a serious policy debate; he’s not offered tax reform when he could have offered tax reform. Did not offer budgets when he could have offered budgets. So you might love the guy, and there’s many things that I get that people like about him as president. But in this season, he’s made the calculation to be extremely political, because they think it’s going to be a close election, and they need to target these demographics.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/04/12/politicos-vandehei-obama-campaign-insanely-political-buffett-rule-#ixzz1rxIUhCzE

    Moonbeam in reply to kathteach. | April 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Kathteach- you hit the nail on the head. Rosen was following the script, but apparently misread the teleprompter. It’s also important to point out that Rosen was brought in by the DNC (Axelrod) to help Debbie Wasserman Shultz on her messaging. I think we are all aware that DWS has been relentless in pounding the “war against women” message for months. Coincidence? It is clear to me that this avenue of attack will not be abandoned, as evidenced by Terri O’Neill’s follow-up attempt in her appearance on that idiot Ed’s show last night to get the O campaign back on message. Another epic fail. As for the feigned Sister Souljah responses from Axelrod/Messina/Obamas, not buying it. Watch what they do, not what they say. This chicanery should come as no surprise- it’s all they have left.

    As for Matt Lewis, I imagine that he will be the Andrew Sullivan/David Brooks/David Frum of 2015. I barely read him anymore for reasons stated by previous commenters.

More on that “War on Women” ….

A former North Carolina Democratic Party staffer was sexually harassed by a party official, made a financial settlement with the party and signed a non-disclosure agreement to keep the incident quiet.

“If this hits the media, the Democratic Party, our candidates, and our credibility are doomed in this election,” reads one email exchange between state Democratic leaders.

An email chain between those Democratic leaders, obtained by The Daily Caller, indicates the executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party, Jay Parmley, and the alleged sexual harassment victim both signed non-disclosure agreements.

The email chain does not make clear who was guilty of the harassment, the status of that individual’s employment with the Democratic Party or the identity of the victim.

    Neo in reply to Neo. | April 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    “Rest assured there is a statewide gathering (I am told) that are upset over this and want people held accountable,” Jones continued. “In all honesty, I am being told by several reliable sources that the Associated Press is itching to get this out. Thankfully, some are trying to stop it. Do we want the Republicans to get this information? They are also asking questions.”

    Jones added that he expects that the “Democratic Party, our Candidates, and our credibility are doomed in this election,” if the alleged sexual harassment story is made public.

    Our press .. always looking out for their customers.

Keep in mind, the people attacking Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mom are the very same people who came unglued at Sarah Palin for not being a stay-at-home mom.

[…] theme, implemented through liberal communications operatives like Rosen, is not playing the victim. It’s standing up for what is right and just, and if we do not stand up for Ann Romney, then we don’t stand up for ourselves. Have we learned […]

By the way, not that this will be read BUT I must point out that..

“So I will continue to believe that the Professor is a filthy liar.”

is, umm, oh yeah..LIBEL.

    punfundit in reply to JP. | April 14, 2012 at 2:47 am

    JP, you weren’t the only one to think that.

    However I suspect our good Professor is too classy to give the guy his fifteen minutes of infamy.

    katiejane in reply to JP. | April 14, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Whether it is libel or not I don’t know but to come on someone’s blog and insult him, call him a liar, accuse him of being a paid schill is IMO justifiable grounds for banning. Someone who adds little other than insults of one’s host is a guest who should be shown the door.

BannedbytheGuardian | April 14, 2012 at 4:29 am

My experience in the states was meeting many intact families where the husband had lost his job /business & it was The Lady of the House that either went out to work or upgraded her job /hours.

Statistics back this up -As of June 09 74% of the jobs lost were lost by males. Women “s participation rate was of 06/09 was an historic high of 48.7%.

When Margaret Thatcher took the hammer to the unions of Nth England & their Industrial revolution industries whole communities hurt because of the high male unemployment. Then the Women ( previously housewives ) went out & found jobs. They saved their own lives , families & towns & never went back to be housewives. Mostly the men stayed unemployed

Cue Billy Elliott -it is not about dancing bit men finding new pathways.

Who knows what can happen to a family in this economic environment. Women ought try & maintain their skills & work so as to step up.

If & when jobs improve why would any employer want to hire women when it is -as you guys explain -so much more worthwhile to stay at home .?

BTW you do not own the concept of family . Contemporary ideas are that the person who can earn the most /earn any $$ be working. What is so wrong with the man sitting out?

8.2 -17% unemployment means flexibility is needed in families.

As to ‘Single Mothers” statistics certainly where I live is that they were once married & a couple once. They did not choose this life. In this common situation SAHms suffer much more than families where the Mum had a job.

    “BTW you do not own the concept of family”

    And yet you have the stones to censure our definitions and tell us we’re wrong.

    Hypocrite.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to punfundit. | April 14, 2012 at 6:17 am

      “censure our definitions ‘ – I simply stated you do not have ownership.

      In my reference I have included American Intact Families & Single Mothered families.

      There is no criticism. FYI I have a family & it is possibly not like yours.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 6:38 am

        I also gave a very concrete examples of a famed Conservative’s approach to families & ‘breadwinners’.

        Margaret -as she herself demonstrated – did not bow to the husband. Whoever could keep the family earning an income which was not state subsidised was her philosophy.

        But cheer up – in her well deserved twilight -she very much misses Dennis. He was very much part of her success .

        May the best person in the family be able to earn their well being.

        I have not defended the Romney family unit. I have not claimed Mrs. Romney is a conservative, nor any other ‘ismative. I have not defended the traditional family unit. Yet you respond in such as manner as if I had. You have *assumed* something that was not the case. You have *pre-judged* my statement, while simultaneously assuming the moral high-ground and denouncing those who disagree with you. You even go so far as to cite what you *presume* are values-contrarian examples as being “good.” Yet I have not attacked any such example.

        Hypocrite.

BannedbytheGuardian | April 14, 2012 at 6:52 am

May I also offer Exhibit O & R.

Both are closely descended from Polygamous marriage arrangements.

But did the Mommies stay home?

Are they then traditional & get your approval?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend