Social Question

Judi's avatar

Excuse me, but is Hillary Rosen running for president?

Asked by Judi (37642 points ) April 13th, 2012 from iPhone

All the political news seems to be about the comments by a Democratic strategist who said “Ann Romney never worked a day in her life.”
I appreciate the discussion, but why do the pundits assume that it will effect the way people feel about Obama? If every candidate has to be responsible for all the words of everyone who supports them then we are all screwed. What’s your take?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

135 Answers

Blackberry's avatar

I’m mentally tired of this all. The media is just stupid. This is my final life conclusion, lol. Their job is to appease the people that pay them, and that doesn’t involve actually educating people unless there’s some major event. Other than that, it’s just filling in time.

wundayatta's avatar

They like to make trouble. Now that there’s no competition in the Republican side, the news media is trying to stir up controversy for the general election. This is the first controversial thing that showed up that can look at all partisan, I guess. This woman used to work for Obama, I think, although she doesn’t now. She’s just a pundit. But still, the news are trying to pin her to Obama and make it stick. After all, the women’s vote is a huge gap right now.

What fun!

Judi's avatar

@wundsyatta, thanks for showing me the right way to spell pundit while I still had time to edit.

Jaxk's avatar

Right or wrong Rosen is a Democratic Strategist that works with Obama. She has been to the Whitehouse 35 times. She does represent the Democratic party. When any Republican makes a slip, everyone in the party is labeled with that gaff. Democrats will suffer the same treatment. It was a rather stupid thing to say.

Judi's avatar

@Jaxk, it was a stupid choice of words. What she should have said was that many women would live to be in a position to have the choice to stay at home, but most women don’t have that choice. They have to work outside the home because wages are so low that single income families are not an option for most.
Ann Coulters comments make news, but were rarely held against Bush and didn’t last for more than one news cycle.

Jaxk's avatar

@Judi

She should have said almost anything other than what she said. She was trying to marginalize Anne Romney with yet another attack on the wealthy. She choose her words poorly. It is emblematic of the whole Democratic strategy to divide us. Break us down into subgroups that can then be pitted against each other. An unfortunate tactic.

filmfann's avatar

Okay, let’s try to sort this out:

Hilary Rosen is not a Obama strategist or consultant. She does work as a consultant, but not for Obama.
What she said was hurtful, and Obama immediately defended Ann Romney, and said Rosen was wrong.
Ann Romney did have housekeepers and such, so I am sure she didn’t have the full experience of the burdens of being a stay-at-home mom.
@Qingu is right in his next post. (resets time machine and disappears)

wundayatta's avatar

@Jaxk Unfortunate in that it works. I think both Republicans and Democrats try to use the divide and rule tactic. Sometimes one party is better than the other at it.

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, what was stupid about her statement?

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 how do we—why we worry about their future.

Seems on target to me. Or do you think it’s “stupid” to point out that a multimillionaire stay-at-home wife with four housekeepers has no experience with the challenges that most actual women face?

GoldieAV16's avatar

Unfortunately, the debate (due to her poor choice of words) is now pitting women against women, and resurrecting a debate that had been put to bed – whether a SAHM mom’s work is actually considered work. The dialogue SHOULD be about whether a candidate will be supporting and helping ALL moms, and addressing their economic concerns, regardless of career choices. That is why I feel a little bit sorry for Rosen: I think that’s the conversation she wanted to be having. Romney’s camp, wanting to avoid that discussion, seized on the other debate. Obama’s camp, because they are wimps, threw Rosen under the bus…as opposed to having the very real and valid debate that she was trying to raise. Reminds me of the Shirley Sherrod debacle: shoot first, ask questions later. We all lose when that happens.

PhiNotPi's avatar

There are a few possible courses of action for Obama:

The best course of action may be for Obama to try and separate Hillary Rosen’s statement from the Democratic party by saying something like “I completely disagree with her statement” and say that he disagrees.

The best course of action may be something where he takes responsibility for Rosen’s actions, apologizes, and then says that he believes that the statement are false and goes into a discussion of women’s role in society. This is what I think that he should do, but it may not be the only option that works.

The best course of action may be simply going into a long discussion about the important role that women play in society without mentioning Rosen’s name. Mentioning job equality, etc and saying that they need to be fixed.

Aethelflaed's avatar

It’s a poor choice of words, but I basically agree with her – that Ann Romney, a rich elite, has no idea what life is like for most women in America, and should under no circumstances be a voice of women at large. Yes, raising kids and being a SAHM is work – but, only when you’re the one doing the actual SAHMing. It’s not, if you have nannies and cooks and gardeners and maids to take care of everything a SAHM normally does. And Ann Romney has never had to chose between feeding her kids and feeding herself, or worry that she can’t afford to transfer her kid to another school even though that kid is being bullied at this one, or struggle to cover all of her family with health insurance.

Aethelflaed's avatar

Why does Hillary Rosen have to be running for president to have an opinion? Isn’t that what everyone, both pundit and citizen, does? Why are you picking on Rosen so much?

Jaxk's avatar

@Qingu

Both you and Rosen are trying to divide women along economic lines. Unfortunately the statement she made misses that mark and divides along working moms vs Stay at Home Moms. The other problem you have is that Anne has been saying that economic issues are what women are concerned about. How do you then say Anne has no idea what women want when you then say the same thing Anne is saying? A conundrum.

GladysMensch's avatar

Obama should not have to apologize or minimize Rosen’s statement. If anything, he should simply reinforce their intended meaning with something like “Mitt Romney would never take advice on venture capitalism from someone with has never worked in business. So why is he taking advice on economic issues from someone who has never worked in economics or even received a paycheck? The fact of that Mitt Romney bases his perspective on women’s economic issues solely on the opinions of his wife shows that he doesn’t care enough about other women to get expert advice.”

Judi's avatar

@Aethelflaed, I’m not picking on her, I basically agree with her. What I find kind of disgusting is the way the press is treating it, as if she were speaking on behalf of the President. I understand the President and his administration have an obligation to choose their words carefully as to not offend anyone. What I don’t get is holding them responsible for the words of an independent person.
I don’t remember anyone holding Romney or even Santorum or Bush responsible for Rush Limbugh’s words.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Jaxk I think the point is that Ann Romney is not in an appropriate position to represent the voice of the typical American woman. She is in the perfect position to represent the feelings of some women in the top 1% financial bracket, and I would certainly defend her credibility for speaking on those issues. Likewise, I think Paris Hilton would have a hard time credibly representing the feelings of the homeless community.

missingbite's avatar

The same reason the left scream every time Rush says something stupid. It goes both ways.

Jaxk's avatar

@gorillapaws

OK just so I have this straight. In order to speak to women’s issues you must first have a uterus (that goes without saying) and you must be poor. Is that about it or are there other restrictions as well?

WestRiverrat's avatar

Fair is fair, if Rush’s comments can be pinned on the whole Republican party, then Rosen’s comments should have the same weight on the Democratic party.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Jaxk You don’t have it straight at all. In order to represent “the voice of the typical American woman, you should have experienced what life is like as a typical American woman. You are certainly entitled to have thoughts and opinions on these issues even if you haven’t lived that lifestyle (and these may be perfectly true), but I don’t think you would make a very good representative of that group.

JLeslie's avatar

Rosen was not criticizing moms who stay home, she was saying Ann Romney likely has no idea what it is like to have to work full time and be responsible for the financial support of the family. Ann’s response about raising 5 children is work, is the battle cry of women who do not work outside of the house, wanting some acknowledgment for the work they do. But, that is a reflex response about a different topic than what Rosen was stating.

Obama get’s castigated because Hillary Rosen is a democrat who often times is on TV showing support for Democrat issues and right now Obama is the king democrat.

JLeslie's avatar

I did a Q regarding what Rosen said, not really asking for comments about Romney and Rosen, but asking do you think people who have never worked for someone else Full time really know what it is like? I’d love more comments if anyone is interested.

GoldieAV16's avatar

Surely Romney has some significant experience with women’s issues. He served as a missionary for two years with his church, and has extensive experience as a Bishop in that faith.

He also must have some experience with women’s issues as a private sector businessman.

He doesn’t have to defer to Ann; she’s not running for any office and HER experience should be irrelevant.

I’d like to hear more from Mitt himself on his experience and stance on women’s issues. When asked if Romney supported the Lily Ledbetter Act, for example, his campaign staffers hemmed and hawed before saying, “We’ll have to get back to you on that.”

Later they issued a statement to clarify, but really? I mean, REALLY?! You don’t know where your candidate stands on equal pay for women?? This suggests an alarming lack of awareness and concern.

I would love to see Mitt Romney come out strongly for women’s issues – but I’m afraid that he defers to Ann because he simply doesn’t know what those issues are. Which is horribly unfair to her, and inappropriate and irresponsible as a Presidential candidate.

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, it’s amazing that you think the whole “you’re engaging in class warfare” canard will somehow work on a Fluther discussion.

It’s very simple. Wealthy people, unless they once were poor, do not have experience in what it is like to face “economic challenges.” Those challenges include wondering how to pay for bills and gas, worrying about feeding kids, worrying about affording your kids education, etc.

Ann Romney has to worry about precisely none of those things. Because she is rich.

Being a stay at home mom has nothing to do with it. Being a woman has nothing to do with it, beyond the fact that “women’s economic challenges” were the subset of economic challenges being discussed.

This shouldn’t be hard for you to understand. Which leads me to conclude, like usual, that you are simply being insincere in service of your partisan talking points.

JLeslie's avatar

Here’s the thing, worrying about paying bills and having enough food is a horrible stress that is only really known by those who have been through it in my opinion. Worrying about supporting a family is one of the greatest stresses, men jump from buildings when that part of their life falls apart. Ann may know, work, care, and help people going through that stress, poor people or people hit a bad time, but she has not lived it as far as I know. She has not been through what it really does to a person psychologically. She certainly can have sympathy, she might understand some of the challenges those people face, but the real day to day difficulty, especially psychologically, I doubt it. And, the Q I linked above, most people seemed to agree it is next to impossible to know what it is like to drag your ass into work every day when you hate your boss, or be late to work and get written up because your kid got sick that morning.

Jaxk's avatar

@Qingu

As usual, you miss the point entirely. Whether you are rich or poor is not a prerequisite to knowing that the economy is the problem. Anne Romney has simply said that women are concerned about the economy. She is not Mitt’s economic advisor nor is she claiming to be representative of the working poor. That is a construct of Rosen (and the entire Democratic party). The truth is Democrats hate the traditional life style of women staying home and raising the kids. It is that image that they detest.

@JLeslie

You may be surprised to learn that men have similar issues with dragging thier ass to work everyday, hating their boss, and getting written up because their kid got sick. You don’t need to be a woman to understand those issues.

GoldieAV16's avatar

@Jaxk

“The truth is Democrats hate the traditional life style of women staying home and raising the kids.”

You have got to be joking. You can’t seriously believe this.

Qingu's avatar

I don’t think @Jaxk believes very much of what he writes about politics on here.

@Jaxk, so, just to be clear, you agree that Ann Romney is not an expert on women’s economic issues? Neither in the sense of having empathy for those issues through personal experience, or having a grasp of the underlying economic forces through some sort of professional/academic economic expertise?

Brian1946's avatar

@Jaxk

“The truth is Democrats hate the traditional life style of women staying home and raising the kids.”

I’d say that most Democrats would love to have that traditional lifestyle economically available to a vast majority of mothers, not just those in the Romney bracket.

Jaxk's avatar

@GoldieAV16

Actually I do. Unlike others, I believe everything I write. OK maybe the occasional sarcasm aside.

@Qingu

Maybe you should read a little about Anne before you try to discredit her.

Jaxk's avatar

@Brian1946

The census estimates 5.6 million stay at home moms in the US. It seems there are more than just the Romney’s that can do this.

GoldieAV16's avatar

@Jaxk

Maybe you should learn to spell her name, before you advise others to learn more about Ann. Just sayin…

SpatzieLover's avatar

What Hillary Rosen said was extremely divisive.
No she’s not running for president, but she is a strategist.
Yes, I think she said it to discredit Ann Romney and the Romney’s money.

What I would’ve done if I were Hillary Rosen: Apologize, then revise my response.
She completely discredited all stay at home moms when she said: ”His wife has never actually worked a day in her life.”

It was uncalled for. The media is all over this because there’s not much else to chat about politically right now.

written by a stay at home mom that leans on the side of socialist

GoldieAV16's avatar

“What I would’ve done if I were Hillary Rosen: Apologize, then revise my response.”

Which is what she did, within 24 hours of making the unfortunate statement.

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, okay. What about Anne’s upbringing or life makes you think she is an expert on economic issues of women? She was raised middle class or wealthy, attended a private school, and married into the Romney aristocracy. She does not appear to have ever held a paying job.

She has MS, which is doubtless terrible and extremely challenging and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Mind spelling out what your point is, @Jaxk?

@SpatzieLover, I agree with Obama that candidates’ families should be off-target for political attacks. I think that is the only reason why what Rosen said was “uncalled for.” It is a fact that Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life,” unless we broadly define “work” to include activities that do not result in pay.

Yes, being a mother is “hard work.” So is being unemployed and looking for a job. Nevertheless, you don’t see politicians taking umbrage at the suggestion that unemployed people don’t have jobs.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Of course! Men as a group know better than women. Men feel more pressure to support their families I would say, with no choice not to. I wrote on one of the two Q’s men jump out of windows when the ability is taken away to financially take care of their families. Please.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t think Rosen should apologize. I think she should have made clear she completely supports a parent who stays home to raise their children, but does not think someone who has never worked outside of the home can truly understand the pressures of that type of work.

augustlan's avatar

@Jaxk Where on earth do you get the idea that “Democrats “hate the traditional life style of women staying home and raising the kids”? I’m a die-hard Dem, and was a stay-at-home mom for 14 years.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Just curious, do you think a man or woman who has never worked outside of the house and who has never had to worry about paying a bill knows what it is like to go to work every day and worry about bills coming in?

Jaxk's avatar

@Qingu

Neither you nor Rosen have even touched on what Ann Lois Romney has said. Instead you’ve tried to discredit her credentials as a woman. She can’t know what women care about because ‘she hasn’t worked a day in her life’. There are two major problems with this.

First her input to Romney is that women are concerned about economic issues. How to get a job, pay the rent, feed the kids, and buy gas. Nothing that requires a degree in either economics or womanhood to understand. She meets with a lot of women’s organizations plus her charitable work and that is what she’s saying she hears. No brain surgery here.

Second when Rosen says Ann ‘didn’t work a day in her life’, the clear implication is that a stay at home mom, isn’t work. Obviously you all don’t get that but Obama did. That’s why he immediately threw Rosen under the bus. 5.6 million stay at home moms was too big a voting block for him to give away.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

I don’t think you have to have cancer to know it’s bad news. You all act like it’s some great mystery, it’s not. OMG poverty isn’t as nice as I thought it would be.

WestRiverrat's avatar

If Mitt didn’t ask Ann first when he wanted input from the opposite gender, he would be sleeping in the doghouse until the end of the campaign season. That does not mean she is the only woman he asks. Are not there any women in key positions on his campaign staff?

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk I am not talking about poverty. I am talking about going to work every day, and feeling the responsibility of financially supporting your family.

Let’s say Mitt died, God forbid, and all his money was taken from her. Now Ann Romney has to figure out what the hell to do to live. You don’t think that would be a new terrifying stress for her?

GoldieAV16's avatar

“Second when Rosen says Ann ‘didn’t work a day in her life’, the clear implication is that a stay at home mom, isn’t work.”

No, it’s not. If you ask women where they work, they reply “I’m a stay at home mom.” But they don’t say, “I work out of my home.” (The implication there would be that she has a paying job from home, right?) Let’s not pretend that we’re confused, and don’t get that being a mom is unpaid so it’s not considered “having a job.” We know it’s work. So is being a “working mom” (and we all know what that means, too – that you’re working two jobs).

Lastly, dads come home and are on the clock for as many hours as they’re at work, plus the weekends. How many men do you know who say, “I work two jobs,” or “I work seven days a week.”?

Why are we all pretending to be dumb about this, or like there’s some hidden motive or meaning to what is commonly expressed every single day in the real world?

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

Maybe there’s another way to say it but I’m not sure what it is. The answer is I don’t think the burden is any great mystery. And I don’t see the pertinence of the question since the president is not going to relieve you of that burden. The best we can hope for is to get the economy going again. If you want the president to pay your bills, that’s a different point. A point I have been arguing against for quite some time.

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, first of all, “women care about the economy” is about the least enlightening conclusion that someone could possibly draw about our country right now. Any moron could tell that. Mitt Romney should have been able to tell that without having to ask his wife. It’s unbelievable that he didn’t realize this, becuase he’s not an idiot… which means he only brought his damn wife into the discussion to use as a prop. The idea that Ann Romney offered some special insight based on her uterus and her raising kids into the central problems of American women is absolutely ludicrous and you know it.

Secondly, stay-at-home moms don’t work. They are not employed. They do not have jobs. If you want to say they do becuase “it’s hard to raise a kid,” then holy shit, you just solved the nation’s unemployment problem. It’s also hard to stay at home and be unemployed and look for jobs—so I guess we have to say that unemployed people have jobs now too. And I guess that means that Republicans like you will stop criticizing Obama for the high unemployment rate, right?

Qingu's avatar

@WestRiverrat, why the hell would you need to ask someone with a uterus to get the crucial piece of information: “women care about the economy”?

Here’s how I see it. There are two options.

1. Romney didn’t know that women care about the economy—in which case he is a complete fucking moron, and also a misogynist.

2. Romney knew perfectly well that women (being, you know, human beings) care about the economy as much as men do. In which case he is lying about having to ask his wife about it and is simply using her as a prop.

I’m picking option #2. What about you?

jonsblond's avatar

““The truth is Democrats hate the traditional life style of women staying home and raising the kids.”

disclaimer: I was/have been a registered Democrat and stay-at-home mom for the majority of my adult years. I am 41 years old.

We do have a history of influential Democrats who have made comments that don’t support stay at home moms. Does anyone remember Hillary Clinton’s comments in 1992? saying on 60 Minutes in 1992 that she wouldn’t be “some little woman standing by my husband like Tammy Wynette. I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life,”

And lets not forget Teresa Heinz-Kerry speaking of Laura Bush in 2004: “Well, you know, I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.

Is it really that difficult to understand why some people might believe what @Jaxk is saying?

@Qingu Have you ever been a parent? It doesn’t just involve changing diapers. Really? Being a parent and taking care of the household is a job. thankyouverymuch

Qingu's avatar

@GoldieAV16, Republicans pretend to be dumb about this because it feeds into the persecution complex they’ve cultivated, that liberals hate traditional families and are at war with Christian values (which being a stay-at-home parent is supposedly an example of).

@jonsblond, I dont’ have kids, but I was under the impression that being a mother involved a lot more than baking cookies, serving tea, and being a servant to your adulterous husband. I find your equivocation disturbing, in fact. I also find it weird that you make this equivocation and then a paragraph later accuse me of equivocating parenting with merely changing diapers.

And no, it’s not a job. Just because something is hard and valuable to society doesn’t mean it’s a “job.” If you don’t get paid, it’s not a “job.” That’s what the word “job” means. If you want respect for being a stay-at-home mom, there are better ways to get it than shedding crocodile tears about the fact that people don’t call it a job.

Qingu's avatar

And here’s a flipside for all you folks taking umbrage (or in Jaxk’s case, pretending to) at the suggestion that being a stay-at-home mom is not a real job.

Are you saying that mothers who do choose to have careers are somehow shirking their responsibilities—or their “jobs”—to raise their kids? Because this line of BS cuts both ways. If raising kids is a “job,” then mothers who have careers outside of the household must not be doing that “job” very well. Right?

WestRiverrat's avatar

@Qingu I agree that Romney should not have to consult anyone to know the answer, but there are those in the media and in the DNC that will use it as a weapon against him if he doesn’t consult women on certain issues.

I do take umbrage at people that consider women or men that choose to stay at home instead of working as not having as much value as anyone else. As long as their households are self sufficient and not taking taxpayer money to not work, then I don’t judge how they live their lives.

It is true not everyone has the luxury of choosing not to work outside the home, but those that do should not be denigrated for being successful.

Qingu's avatar

@WestRiverrat, but nobody denigrated Ann Romney for being successful or for choosing to stay home and raise kids instead of having a career.

Pointing out that what she does is not a job, that she has in fact never had a job, never had to worry about money, or the economic issues that most women face—the whole point of Romney bringing her into the national spotlight in the first place—is not “denigrating” her decisions.

Let’s say Barack Obama brought out Jay Leno, owner of a huge collection of classic cars, onto the national stage and then claimed to consult Jay Leno about the crisis of high gas prices—since Jay Leno must know about gas prices as a multiple car owner. You would probably point out, correctly, that Jay Leno knows jack shit about the pressures ordinary Americans face due to high gas prices. But pointing this out would not be denigrating Jay Leno’s success, or his decision to invest in a huge collection of classic cars.

That said: I certainly don’t think Ann Romney deserves respect for her “success,” since she did not actually work to achieve that success in the slightest. She was born into a rich family and married into an even richer family. She seems to have used her wealth to support charitable causes, which is great, but she’s a perfect example of how wealth in America often has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding hard work.

JLeslie's avatar

Gawd. No one is saying women who stay home with their kids are less than. @Qingu is right, serving tea and cookies and standing by their man is a whole different type of woman. Hillary was basically forced to take her husband’s surname because Arkansas saw her as too independent, not family enough, not knowing her place. She has proven to be committed to her husband and his career, and stood by him for that matter, give me a break. She was commenting on the provincial values and expectations of the, dare I say, backwards people in that state. Not that everyone is behind the times there, I am only commenting on those who are. She was probably sick of it. Sick of the demand that she should behave a certain way. Even in the White house people were unhappy she might actually have responsibilities outside of planning the Christmas trees.

Rosen did not attack women who stay home with their children. God, I am so sick of this reflex defending stay at home moms. If someone had attacked stay at home moms, fine, but no one did. All that was said was they don’t have “work” experience, and they don’t.

Do moms on this Q think that people with no children really understand what it is like to stay up all night with them, worry about them desparately when they are ill, the intense fear you could lose them, the intense fear they are suffering? Or, just the every day guilt and wondering if as a parent you have done everything so they are prepared for the world? Do you really think nonparents really and truly get what parents go through psychologically? The physical exhaustian and obligation? Sure we can imagine it, we know how we worry for our loved ones, but I would guess for our children it is almost unimaginable, unless you have been through it.

JLeslie's avatar

And, I will add, have you ever watched the show Undercover Boss? How the Ivory tower guys have no clue how hard people in their company work. They push and push for more productivity, and then they go down on the line and see how impossible and slave driving their goals are. Or, if goals are realistic they realize still how so many of their employees are overlooked. It is really difficult to know what a job experience is like unless you have worked it whether the job be parenting, being a flight attendant, a salesperson, working in a factory, or being the CEO. Those undercover bosses gained a new appreciation for the hard work the employees do, when they actually did the job along side them, they really could not imagine it accurately.

GoldieAV16's avatar

Oh look here’s an Omigod Light Our Hair on Fire Blunder! Mitt Romney said that moms used to be able to stay at home, AND NOW THEY HAVE TO WORK.

Is he implying that being a SAHM is not work? Is this another famous flip flop?

::yawn then, yawn now::

Jaxk's avatar

@Qingu

The issue is not difficult even for a liberal. Of course the liberals want it to be something else entirely so they try to distract us.

Obama started this ‘war on women’ rhetoric to distract us from the economy. The Republicans were locked in their primary and Obama was free to throw things out to create issues where none existed. So he threw in the birth control controversy (as if there was one) to get everyone focused on a non-issue. And he made some headway with it. As long as he could keep focus on the contraceptives and off the economy, he actually was able to gain back some support. But he needs to keep us focused on anything but the economy. Now come Ann Romney. She’s personable, speaks well, and adds some sensitivity to Romney’s campaign. What she says is that the main issue for women is the economy. Not much of a surprise here but Democrats don’t want anyone talking about the economy, they want them talking about birth control. So what do they do? They do what liberals always do, they attack Ann personally. Discredit the person and you don’t have to deal with the message.

So here’s Ann Romney, She’s had Breast cancer and beat it, she’s been diagnosed with Multiple sclerosis and raised 5 boys while working in multiple charity organizations. She had to quit school to raise thier first child but finished college through night school. Not exactly an easy life even with money. But she had one failing that Democrats and women’s libbers detest, she was a housewife (or stay at home mom). You can’t be a new age woman and still be a stay at home mom. That’s way to close to being a housewife and that can’t be tolerated. So they attack. You can’t listen to Ann, she’s never worked a day in her life. She can’t possibly know what it means to be a woman, because, she’s never worked a day in her life.

The only fly in the ointment is that there are 5.6 million stay at home mom’s and they’re not ready to be so easily discarded. Who knows maybe the strategy will work, maybe it won’t. Obama has already thrown Rosen under the bus so maybe he’ll be able to distance himself but that is obviously what he’s trying to do.

If you want to continue to defend the indefensible, go ahead.

augustlan's avatar

@Jaxk Again with the “liberals hate stay-at-home moms”? What the hell, am I invisible??

Judi's avatar

I would have loved to have had the choice to stay home.

jca's avatar

The life of a woman who is married to a man who makes 20 million a year is just a bit (just a bit) different than the “average American woman,.” regardless if she works for multiple charities, goes to night school, whatever, and regardless whether the “average American woman” is a SAHM or a working mother or a working non-mother or a single mother who works.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Total bullshit. There are women who are democrats, liberals, all over America who are stay at home moms. I’m a democrat, I don’t even have kids, and I haven’t worked for three years. I’m just here running the errands, cleaning the house, planning vacations. No one is taking away from all that Ann does. I completely respect her “job” of raising her children, and her battle with the illnesses that have come her way. I am sure she is a strong woman, smart, none of that is in question.

Is some of the conversation in the media political, of course, you seem to be making it political too. But if we just have an honest, nonpolitical conversations about women who have never worked, and if they really understand the psychological pressures of being the bread winner and the obligations to work, then I again still don’t see how you can say they really understand what it is like. Sure there might be a few people who can perfectly predict what it would be like, but most people have to live it I think.

GoldieAV16's avatar

…and more recent (Jan 2012) comments from Mitt on SAHM’s:

“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Romney said. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’

I have a feeling that’s going to work it’s way into some campaign videos…

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk My grandmother stayed home with her kids, although she did work several times in her life before they were born, and after they left the house. My grandparents were liberal democrats. We had to cross a picket line when my grandfather died at the funeral parlor, and everyone said if he were alive he never would have allowed. He was pro unions, both of them prochoice, my grandmother actually worked as a school counselor, several years it was at thw high school that took the pregnant girls, it only reinforced her pro-choice views. My mother, a life long Democrat, stayed home with us the first 9 years of my life, once in a while working part time. My dad, a Republican at the time, pushed her to go to work, because he wanted help bringing money in. She preferred staying home with the kids. I don’t know where you get this idea democrats have a problem with women staying home to raise kids or even when they don’t have kids. I guess maybe you mean Republican women are more likely to think a woman’s place is in the home? I don’t think that.

JLeslie's avatar

@GoldieAV16 Oy. But, it will be twisting his words, which bothers me. He means work instead of welfare and food stamps. Not work when you have the financial means to stay home.

GoldieAV16's avatar

If the work is valued, ie “the most important job in the world,” should it matter how we fund it?

GoldieAV16's avatar

but I get what you’re saying

Jaxk's avatar

@augustlan

Not meaning to ignore you, just terating you with the same respect that the rest of the Democrats and feminists would treat you. Your input doesn’t count because you don’t work.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk OMG! So you think the fact that @augustlan was a stay at home mom and a democrat and liberal does not give her legitimate standing in commenting that there are stay at home moms who are democrats and liberals? WTF?

If Ann Romney wants to comment on how she raised 5 wonderful children we would be happy to listen. How she organized their day, what she encouraged them to do, whatever.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

Wasn’t that the whole point of the comment? Rosen said that Ann can’t comment on women’s issues because “she’s never worked a day in her life”. I didn’t make these rules, just trying to show the fallacy in them.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Jaxk, have you ever had to deal with being in the highest tax bracket and everything that entails? If not, you can’t comment on any issue related to that income bracket. Have you ever slept under a bridge because you didn’t have a home? Sorry, you aren’t qualified to comment.

JLeslie's avatar

It is not about comments and opinions, it is about attacking Rosen for pointing out something that is true. Ann may have opinions, but she is no expert it seems to me. Where is her experience, or what is her knowledge of working women based on? If you want Ann to be the advisor for working women have at it, but let’s not attack Rosen for stating a fact. And, let’s not say Rosen was attacking stay at home mom’s, she never did. Let the people decide what validity Ann’s comments mean or if Rosen’s comment means maybe we should listen to some more voices besides Ann on the topic. And, it was not as broad as “women’s issues” women have many issues they are concerned with, and honestly I prefer not to divide the issues between the sexes, but that’s me.

JLeslie's avatar

Plus, is Romney saying he didn’t know women care about the economy, jobs, etc? I give him more credit than that.

Jaxk's avatar

@bkcunningham

Just so we’re clear, I don’t have any rules on who can or can not have an opinion on anything. It appears from the question and the ensuing commentary that some do. If you want to comment on homelessness, you don’t have to be homeless to do so. It was Rosen that said Ann’s comments weren’t valid because she hadn’t worked a day in her life. And the National Organization of Women (NOW) supported that position. As well as many here on Fluther. If you accept that premise, then you’re right people would not be qualified to comment on a whole variety of issues, dependent on their life experiences. I don’t subscribe to those rules.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk @bkcunningham Is that your big gripe? That Ann can have an opinion. Then we agree, she can have an opinion.

Judi's avatar

Having an opinion and being an authority are two different things. I can have an opinion on fruits and vegetables, I may have even tasted them, but that doesn’t make me a farmer, or a horticulturist.

bkcunningham's avatar

I realize that it was Rosen, @Jaxk. I was being a smartass. I agree with all of your points. Excellent posts, btw.

augustlan's avatar

@Jaxk Now you’re just being ridiculous. I had a job for years before I had children, I have a job now. My point, and I do have one, is where do you get the idea that liberals don’t value stay-at-home moms?

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, what do you think about this quote? It’s about welfare moms.

“I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

bkcunningham's avatar

@GoldieAV16 already posted that quote by Romney, @Qingu. What does a discussion about getting a person off of welfare have to do with the discussion about a parent who decides to not work outside the home? I must be missing something here.

Qingu's avatar

You sure are missing something, @bkcunningham.

By the way, were you offended by Hilary Rosen’s comments that Ann Romney, despite being a housewife, didn’t actually “work”?

bkcunningham's avatar

What am I missing, @Qingu?

Honestly, I wasn’t offeneded. I always consider the source. I think there are many more important matters facing us than a comment by a DNC advisor meant to progress the so-called war on women.

Qingu's avatar

By the way @Jaxk, just to be clear, I’m perfectly willing to agree that someone like you or me knows as much about women’s economic issues as Ann Romney. The three of us are certainly entitled to our opinions and can all apply the knowledge we’ve gained as intelligent adults about economic issues to this particular issue.

What I dispute is that Ann Romney has special personal knowledge of the economic challenges facing women. I don’t have that personal knowledge either. By definition no guy does, and obviously super-rich people do not have “personal” knowledge of economic challenges faced by middle class and poor unless they themselves were at some point. Would you agree with this?

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, great! Glad we’re on the same page finally. I guess I do want to clarify because this seems like it’s too good to be true. Do you agree with Rosen’s comment that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life and therefore lacks personal knowledge of the economic challenged faced by most American women? And do you agree that the Republican response to those comments has been fake outrage?

By the way, Rosen certainly agrees with you about the silliness of the so-called war on women. Her words:

“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 one spreading it.”

bkcunningham's avatar

By the grace of God, I have never been an umemployed woman struggling to raise a child. Does that mean I don’t understand those challenges? No. My real life experience, not rhetoric on a television show to get a man elected to POTUS, has put me in situations where I know first fucking hand their struggles. So don’t tell me just because someone hasn’t lived through something themselves, they can’t be vocal about it or understand it.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, I don’t think anyone has told you that. In fact I just wrote the opposite. But I do think you don’t have personal experience in those challenges, since you haven’t lived through it. Likewise, I may understand in the abstract what kind of challenges poor people face, but since I am myself middle class who was lucky enough to be spoiled by middle class parents, I do not personally understand those challenges. I also don’t personally understand what it’s like to be a black person in America (being white) although I feel that I understand the phenomenon of racism in the abstract.

You also didn’t answer my questions. Can you, please?

bkcunningham's avatar

@Qingu, trust me when I say I do have personal experience in those challenges. My best friend in this world was a woman who I worked with from the time I was 18. We lived together for five years. She lost her job, was recently married and pregnant. While pregnant, she found out her husband was cheating on her. She threw his sorry ass out and moved into a trailer on her parent’s property. Her home had actually holes in the floor of one bedroom. Her parents had an outside toilet, they used her trailer for doing their personal bathroom business.

She went on welfare and started taking classes at a state university and eventually got a Bachelors degree in nursing. I know how she felt everytime she had to take her baby to the doctor and “WELFARE” was written in big letters across her file and the hateful things that people said to her. I know how she felt when we fought to get Nick Joe Rahall to help women like her not have to give up fuel assistance when they got a friggin’ grant to help with the cost of school…sorry it is a very emotional issue with me.

Don’t tell me I don’t have personal knowledge of her struggles. She was my sister friend. She died 17 years ago from a perferated bowel (pretty fucking ironic for someone who was an RN, huh?) and left her mother and father and what help I could give to raise her daughter.

I was and still am in their lives and the life of her daughter.

bkcunningham's avatar

I didn’t really follow the response to Rosen stupid comment. I do think Obama has tried a divide and conquere strategy with everything from women’s issues to income. Just because she says the word or phrase hasn’t been used by the Dems and Progressives doesn’t, IMHO, mean the meaning and implications of the words haven’t been used.

bkcunningham's avatar

And anyway, what is the point of what she said? Just because Ann Romney hasn’t lived as a struggling poor woman she can’t voice an opinion? See where that leaves us? Back to the stupid circle jerk fight of you can’t discuss that you haven’t lived it, you can’t understand that you are a man. That is absolute stupid to me.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, my comment about your lack of “personal experience” was based on your comment:

“I have never been an umemployed woman struggling to raise a child.”

I think you bring up an interesting point. Does being close to someone who goes through a certain problem impute “personal experience” of that problem onto you? I think it probably does to some extent. I myself have never been long-term employed, but three of the most important people of my life have been. So, by virtue of being close to them, I feel that I do personally understand to some extent the pain involved in being long-term unemployed.

Nonetheless, I think it would be mighty odd for someone to say that I was an “expert” on the challenges facing the long-term unemployed.

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. I mean, you just said that Rosen’s comment was “stupid.” Why do you think it’s stupid? You agree that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life, right?

And if you disagree, and think that being a housewife counts as work, then surely Mitt Romney’s comment about how welfare moms don’t actually work and need the “dignity of work” is much, much stupider? (Since welfare moms, unlike Romney, can’t generally afford four housekeepers to do some of that work).

Finally, nobody said Ann Romney can’t voice an opinion. Nobody. All Rosen said was that Ann Romney does not have personal experience or expertise in the economic challenges that most women face—in response to Mitt Romney touting her as such. I don’t think that’s very hard to understand the difference between these two statements and I frankly have no idea why you and @Jaxk would continue to honestly confuse them.

bkcunningham's avatar

Ann Romney didn’t work for a private employer outside the home while she has been married. I agree to that statement, @Qingu. I don’t understand what making a decision to stay home has to do with someone receiving welfare benefits. I am discussing someone who stays home and has a partner who brings in an earned income. Not someone who is receiving welfare benefits.

bkcunningham's avatar

I heard someone say, just becaue my doctor hasn’t had cancer doesn’t mean I don’t want them treating my illness.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, let’s review this “controversy.”

Hilary Rosen said Ann Romney doesn’t work.

Republicans then become OUTRAGED at the suggestion that being a stay-at-home mom is not “work.”

But Mitt Romney said the exact same thing in the quote. He said welfare moms (you know, stay-at-home moms) need the “dignity of work”—that is, of having a paying job.

But if you agree that being a stay-at-home mom is not really “work,” then I fail to see why you think Rosen’s comment was stupid. You said it was. Can you please explain why you said that?

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, why do you think Ann Romney is analogous to a doctor? I agree that a doctor does not need to have cancer to treat cancer. But a doctor needs to spend years studying oncology to treat cancer.

Has Ann Romney spent years studying economic issues, specifically economic issues that women face? I know she went to college; pretty sure she’s not remotely a professional economist.

bkcunningham's avatar

It is like there is an absolute disconnect here, @Qingu. You brought up the welfare parent quote. Now explain to me how that is part of the discussion about a stay-at-home parent.

Qingu's avatar

The discussion is about whether a stay-at-home parent counts as “work.”

What part of being a stay-at-home parent on welfare makes that inapplicable?

Are you suggesting that a stay-at-home mom with a rich husband does work, while a stay-at-home mom on welfare does not?

By the way, I want to be clear. It’s hard as hell to raise kids. People have estimated the costs of being a stay-at-home parent at something like $115,000 a year. To me, whether or not being a stay-at-home parent counts as “work” is largely a semantic issue. For clarity’s sake, I prefer to say it doesn’t, since a “job” by definition involves getting paid, and they don’t. But this isn’t intended to make a moral judgment on people who choose to stay home and raise kids instead of enter the workforce. I don’t think Rosen was doing that either. And it’s also important to remember that many people don’t have that choice, because they can’t afford to be a stay-at-home parent without getting paid.

But let’s keep in mind the trajectory of this controvery. Rosen said Ann Romney doesn’t work. Romney and Repubs responded with outrage and claimed that raising kids really does count as “work.” But if raising kids counts as work, then why the hell would Mitt Romney suggest that stay-at-home moms at welfare need to learn the “dignity of work”? I brought up that quote because the Republican response, or at least the Romney’s, looks to be completely deceitful and hypocritical, as I hope you’ll agree.

bkcunningham's avatar

No, @Qingu, it is the context of Romney’s remarks you quoted. He was talking about getting back to work instead of staying on welfare. The difference is having support from a partner and support from the taxpayers. Romney was also talking about providing incentives for employer provided daycare.

The are two entirely different discussions. I think you understand that. I hope so at least.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, how are they two different discussions? Romney and the rest of the GOP are supposedly outraged that someone said housewives don’t “work.”

But Romney just said a year ago that housewives don’t work… if they’re on welfare. He went further, actually. He said that you can only get “dignity” from work that pays… unlike, you know, being a housewife on welfare.

Maybe it would help if you clarified your own view, @bkcunningham. Is being a housewife work? Once again, I’d appreciate a direct answer.

bkcunningham's avatar

I absolutely think they work. This is what I said in response to @JLeslie‘s question in another post: if domestic responsibilities really give someone a clear idea of what it is like to hold down a job and worry about financially responsiblities?

If someone stays home and takes care of the household responsibilities and/or the children, that would mean, in most cases and I assume for the point of your qestions, that there is only one income for the household. I would think that would make financial responsibilities and knowledge of handling finances and time even more important in that household.

The price of goods and services is the same for the family with one breadwinner as it is for a family with two incomes. I don’t see that managing a home makes someone less aware of what it is like to hold down a job. In my opinion it would make you more aware of the financial responsibilities of life. These responsibilities don’t change because you have two incomes. I mean, there isn’t a line to pay bills or buy groceries that says stay-at-home partners or two income households….

I took a sabbatical from my job outside the home for one year. Even things that I did outside of my home; the work I did as a parent and woman, involved fundraising for school activities, filling out forms and dealing with beauracrats and people who held power over me. Tell me that isn’t a job or work.

Qingu's avatar

So do stay-at-home moms on welfare work?

bkcunningham's avatar

Yes, @Qingu. Romney’s remarks weren’t about whether or not a person on welfare and stays home works. It was about who supports them financially.

Qingu's avatar

“I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. ... It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.”

Really, @bkcunningham? He explicitly says that being a stay-at-home parent on welfare is not work. And that it lacks dignity.

Amazing.

bkcunningham's avatar

Are you drunk?

Qingu's avatar

No. Are you?

bkcunningham's avatar

No. But I may need a drink after this discusion. Oy vey.

Qingu's avatar

Is it really that difficult to admit your favored political party is hypocritical in this instance? Oy vey indeed.

By the way, what was “stupid” about Rosen’s comment? You never answered. Something tells me you’re never going to.

bkcunningham's avatar

Two things were stupid about her comment. First, like she said, her choice of words. Secondly, that she thinks Mrs. Romney can’t be in touch with economic issues facing women because she is a stay-at-home mom. See my above answers to understand why I think that is misguided.

bkcunningham's avatar

Also, @Qingu, for the record, I’m not a fan of Romney.

Qingu's avatar

Do you think Romney’s statement about welfare parents was stupid?

Qingu's avatar

For the record, I don’t care about Rosen’s choice of words, it’s semantics. It’s not “work” if you don’t get paid.

And I don’t think Ann Romney is in touch much about the economic issues facing most women—including stay-at-home moms—because she was born into wealth, married one of the richest people of America, has never had to worry about her finances, and currently employs four housekeepers. She also appears to have zero relevant experience in economic education.

I think it is stupid to go after the candidate’s wife, though.

bkcunningham's avatar

I have looked, not very hard, and can only find the recent discussions about his statement. I would really have to know the entire discussion to say whether or not it was “stupid.” I found something where it said he was talking about welfare reform at a meeting in New Hampshire, but I don’t know the context of the statement. Do you?

Qingu's avatar

What magical context could possibly exist whereby his statement that “welfare parents don’t have the dignity of work” somehow becomes “welfare moms work, have dignity, and anyone who says they don’t hates traditional values.”

You also don’t seem too interested in the context of Rosen’s statement.

Anyway, I got stuff to do. This has certainly been enlightening.

bkcunningham's avatar

The part of the statement you misquoted, @Qingu, should say, ”...have the dignity of work….” He didn’t say “don’t have the dignity to work.” Wow.

“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Romney said. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

bkcunningham's avatar

Enlightening, indeed.

bkcunningham's avatar

I see you changed your post, @Qingu, without saying EDIT… after my post noting how you twisted Romney’s words; ironically, from a quote you brought into the discussion.

Qingu's avatar

I almost always edit my posts immediately after posting them. It’s a compulsion. I’m an editor by day, you know.

I don’t really have anything to add to this conversation. I think it stands as an excellent example of how GOP base voters think.

bkcunningham's avatar

I didn’t think it was malicious. I do it all the time and hope I do it before anyone has read my post. I just wanted to get your goat.

GoldieAV16's avatar

At least now we know what Ann Romney really thought of the remark, calling it “an early birthday present.”

Qingu's avatar

I’m posting this because I think it’s funny. From the mouth of Ann Romney in 1994:

They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income. It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.

We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year — it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.

Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.

Hard times in the Romney college years indeed. And poor Ann Romney apparently had never heard of a throw rug.

Another interesting factoid: if Romney is elected, Ann Romney would be the only first lady in a century who had never held a paying job.

jca's avatar

@Qingu: My thoughts as I read what she said were “nowhere is she saying they struggled because they had to work at minimum wage jobs while they also went to school.” To go to school full time and not have to work, and still have enough money for rent, food, and whatever, is not a struggle at all! And now hubby is a zillionaire, who knows the owners of Nascar teams and whatever else he’s said during his campaign! What a tough life.

Qingu's avatar

I actually think it’s a big deal that wealthy people, and a lot of middle class people too, often have no conception of what poverty is like. I mean you’ve probably read the articles about Wall Street millionaires complaining about their privations upon receiving smaller bonuses, how hard it is for them to continue sending their kids to the most expensive private schools in New York, etc.

In some respects it’s human nature. We are wired to judge things relative to our personal experience. When we start off rich and then suddenly find ourselves in a cement-floor basement eating tuna helper, it seems like a major hardship. But, crucially, it’s not. And if someone is so unreflective to not realize how lucky they are to be able to go to college and afford rent and food without working, I think it shows a certain cluelessness about how the world works.

But, of course, pointing out that rich people often live in oblivious bubbles is ultimately just class warfare and envy of the successful. Even though there’s a whole religion about how a rich guy lived in such a bubble and only found enlightenment by stepping outside of it.

JLeslie's avatar

Well, I will say that they “struggled” more than I would have thought. But, it doesn’t compare to really worrying about food on the table. Plus, they were students, if they really ran out of money most likely one of their parents would have floated them some cash. I mean when you are poor, and your family is poor, there is no safety net.

When I was first starting as an adult, I hit a few months that I could not afford my bills. I had taken a cut in pay supposedly to move ahead, I won’t bother explaining the BS thought process my company try to sell me. Anyway, my dad offered me $1,000 and I accepted. He really kept me out of debt while I figured out something else. He would have given me more if I needed it, as long as he felt I was doing my best to get out of the situation and move forward. I had not been thinking about asking my parents for money, I had really started to feel the stress of not paying my bills for the first time ever, and it is some of the worst stress just from that short time I went through it. I don’t venture to guess I know what it is like to really struggle financially, the worry that comes with it, and the ability to accept sometimes you can’t pay. Just that would freak me out. I pay my bills, I see it as part of my integrity, and for some, those with integrity, which I think most people have, it must weigh heavily on self esteem to not be making it.

I love that Mitt got a few thousand each birthday. Back then a thousand dollars was a hell of a lot of money. When I graduated high school I had $1,000 more or less in the bank and I was very impressed with myself.

bkcunningham's avatar

I had a discussion with a friend today about some of the comments made on this thread. His response really put it in perspective for me. He said, it is a smoke screen that really insults the intelligence of Americans. He said wealth, nannies, cars, homes, occupations, et al. was never an issue nor a problem for the Kennedys.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@bkcunningham I agree. It’s a red herring.

Judi's avatar

But the Kennedy’s were able to connect with the poor and the middle class and he hasn’t. He reeks of smug arrogance while the Kennedy’s were more like humble nobles who reflected the heart of their Catholic faith by supporting policies that tended to the most needy in society.
   “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

GoldieAV16's avatar

It’s also a different era…

People are suspect of how moneyed people became moneyed, and how they’ve used/abused the privilege that comes with wealth.

I think it’s very fair to examine those issues in a candidate.

bkcunningham's avatar

Humble nobles? Their spiritual core? No offense, @Judi, but that does honestly make me laugh out loud.

Judi's avatar

Durrimg the Kennedy Era the wealthy (like them) paid a MUCH higher tax rate than Romney does. The country had a sense of moral obligation to each other.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@Judi JFK lowered the tax rates on the wealthiest far more than Bush ever did.

JLeslie's avatar

I think Romney has his words twisted al the time by the media, and I hate it. I hate when they do it toany politican. I agree with Romney a lot when what he sayd is put in context. The quotes above of Romney talking about people being able to get back to work and the government will help fund daycare, that was very similar to what Clinton wanted and tried to do. Clinton had a welfare to work program to give people the dignity of working, and earning a living.

I agreed with Romney when he said he likes to be able to fire people. I agreed with him on other things he has been ripped to shreds on that I cannot remember right now.

In fact, as I think about Ann Romney’s response to Hillary Rosen was not, “I may not have lived a life of working and struggling, but I have people close to me who have, and I see what they go through, I have worked with and helped those who struggle, I know their fears, their need.” No, she said basically, “taking care of children is work, don’t diminish the stay at home mom.” Her reply sidetracked the issue at hand.

There is no getting around Ted Kennedy’s fight for healthcare for all. The Kennedy’s wealth was at least partly ill gotten gains, I think that is pretty much excepted, and I am sure they probably did things for the wealthy and made political deals with corporations, I don’t really know, but it would not surprise me, but they did seem to care about the minority, care about those who could help themselves the least, and I do believe it came at least partly from their Catholic faith. Michael Moore also cites his Catholicism for his reasons for some of his very liberal views.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, actually, your comment is the smokescreen. Like usual, you try to deflect criticism of the GOP by trying to “dirty the water.”

I’ll go further: I don’t think you’re being sincere. I think you understand perfectly well that we are not criticizing the Romneys for being rich. I think you know perfectly well that some Democrats are rich aristocrats adds nothing to this discussion.

It’s a shame because I thought we were actually on the cusp of an honest discussion for a bit.

bkcunningham's avatar

What are you criticizing Romeny for again, @Qingu? I didn’t say you were criticizing anyone for being rich. I’ve been talking about comments regarding the Romneys being out of touch because of their wealth.

Qingu's avatar

The Romneys are out of touch. Ann Romney is a spoiled aristocrat who has no personal experience that make her an expert on women’s economic issues.

The Kennedys, as far as I know, are too.

But I don’t recall the entire Democratic establishment acting shocked and outraged when a Republican advisor pointed this out about the Kennedys. That’s the issue. The fake outrage by the GOP. And you know it’s the issue.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’m sorry, @Qingu, I missed the Republican advisor on CNN pointing out that the Kennedys are out of touch. What presidential election year did this take place during? Who was the advisor?

I personally think and stated such, that I think the entire issue is a non-issue and there are many, many more important matters that we should be focused on in this country.

Qingu's avatar

You’ve done almost nothing but defend the GOP’s talking points throughout this entire thread. You don’t get to throw up your hands and say “oh it’s actually not that important” to obscure the fact that you were wrong.

As for Republican attacks on the Kennedys, surely you are not going to make me crawl Google search results for examples of Republicans attacking the Kennedys as out of touch aristocrats. I’m also not sure why you’re asking me “what presidential year did this take place.” You’re the one who brought up the Kennedys as a supposed counterpoint, you know perfectly well that it makes no sense to require a perfect analogy with the Kennedys as presidential candidates. If it’s presidential politics you want, it’s been a constant refrain that Al Gore and John Kerry and Barack Obama are elitists who are out of touch with normal Americans.

Again, I have trouble believing that you are being sincere, because the arguments you appear to be making make no sense whatsoever. You seem to be playing a slightly more sophisticated version of “I know you are but what am I?” I think on some level you must know what you are doing; I am certain Jaxk does from my repeated discussions with him. I don’t really know what else to say. It’s disappointing that it’s so hard to have an honest discussion with a conservative.

bkcunningham's avatar

EDIT: Forget about it.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther