Yes, she did say it but she could have phrased it differently. Nobody in their right mind believes a stay at home mind is not a difficult full time job. It is indeed work. The problem Ms. Rosen has is not having chosen her words more precisely to reflect the complications of the higher tier nuances of world wide economics. Common sence,taking care of children, balancing the household budget and as you stated breast cancer is indeed work. But not all work is the same. I am not siding with Ms. Rosen on this til she sees the error in her ways. I will, however, say that the International Monetary Fund with all its varied currencies and denominations is not the same as paying the house hold light bill and buying groceries.
Yes - it's all in what you call "actually""working." The problem for Ms. Rosen is that she came across as the stereotypical liberated-woman-who-has-chosen-career-over-a-"traditional"-motherhood-role. Haughtiness is the word I would use to describe it. She is being almost unanimously condemned for her remarks - and chooses to exacerbate the situation by "standing by them."
The Obama administration knows this is a real potential problem and tends to undermine all of the "actual work" THEY have done in pumping up the GOPs so-called "war on women." See:
...and if you look at her quote above, Ms. Rosen obviously misses the entire point THAT SHE HERSELF MADE in her statement:
That Romney's wife - in her travels around the country in this campaign - is being told by American women "that what (they) really care about are economic issues."
Mrs. Romney doesn't have to have "actually worked a day in her life" to be able TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE AMERICAN WOMEN ARE TELLING HER and pass it along to her husband - which is all Rosen quasi-quotes Romney as saying. But in her attempt to (IMHO mindlessly) bash Romney AND his wife, Rosen wound up shooting herself and her Party in the foot, head, back, and rear end.
And with her (also mindless) "doubling down" and standing by her statement, she's still shooting in the wrong direction.
UPDATE: Hilary Rosen "apologizes":
"Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay at home moms’ to rest once and for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen. In response to Mitt Romney on the campaign trail referring to his wife as a better person to answer questions about women than he is, I was discussing his poor record on the plight of women’s financial struggles.
As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."
Once again Ms. Rosen misses the point and mischaracterizes what SHE SAID Romney said. But on one thing I do agree: let both sides put an end to ALL "phony" wars (on stay-at-home moms AND on women), and focus on the "substance."
But I wonder if they actually remember how to do that?
....and here's a FLASHBACK to candidate Obama on the treatment of HIS wife during the 2008 campaign:
"But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable," he said.
Obama praised his wife's patriotism and said that for Republicans "to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class ... and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable."
Obama later added, "I think that the American people also would like to see some restoration of decency to this process. And when you start attacking family members, there's a lack of decency there."
Yes - let's try to restore some DECENCY to the process. Ms. Rosen can start.
Both sides' minions make gaffes. What was it a week or two ago Romney's campaign manager stated that Romney's position right 'now' was akin to etch a sketching? Inferring that Romney's "positions" are subject to being altered depending to whom he is addressing.
The Spin is On.
It is. But they won't be able to spin this one completely away and they know it. Rosen is now all over the airwaves "apologizing," and the President and his primary "minions" have been forced to disavow Rosen's comments.
As for the etch a sketch and Romney's positions being altered - ALL OF THAT IS TRUE!!!! But to use that as some bifurcated justification for Rosen's comments is just "obfuscation and changing the subject" - as another prominent blogger who posts here often says. It is the hypocrisy and untruth of ROSEN'S COMMENTS about "stay-at-home" moms that give this story legs. Plus - as I pointed out - Rosen didn't even realize what she was saying when she criticized Romney and his wife. She literally was ripping Ann Romney's intelligence and her ability to convey to the candidate what American women were telling her. In effect, Rosen was calling Ann Romney intellectually incapable of accurately passing along the comments/context of input she was getting from American women on the campaign trail.
Rosen tried to be too clever and too slick by shooting for a "two-fer gotcha" on both Romney AND his wife. But all she shot was herself and her Party's cause.
for most of us, housewives work every day. but for in a household making between 30-40 million dollars a year?? the nanny and maids do the work. and as far as economic issues she is out of touch with the mass majority of americans.
Ditto gacpl. And Sebe, brother, I ain't a tryin "to justify" Rosen's comments and I stated such.
As for this story "having legs...": It will all be gone in a week to make room for the next gaffe from either party.
Remember George Herbert Walker Bush the Elder....?....he was so out of touch with the American people he did not know how to check his groceries out and had to be instructed on how to swipe his card.
You guys are missing the point - and are participating in the spin. Romney's wife never claimed to be an expert on economics. All her husband said was that she was reporting what the women on the campaign trail were telling her about THEIR concerns. An eight year-old kid can do that. But when Romney points this out, this triggers the trashing of Mrs. Romney and the implication that because she's not had a "career" she is somehow inferior to women who DO, and is not "qualified" to tell her husband what American women are telling her are their concerns.
Rosen tried to slap down the comment that it's the ECONOMY that's the problem, and in her ham-fisted way she damaged the Dems rather than the opposition.
THAT'S the point - and that's what people are cranked up about. The President sees the issue - as does the VP and all of the Prez' principal advisors - OTHERWISE they wouldn't be distancing themselves as far as possible from Rosen and her comments, and even claiming not to know her or claiming there are "multiple Hilary Rosens":
At a press conference earlier this week when it was pointed out that Rosen visited the White House more than 30 times - more than VP Biden, Gen Petraeus, and some other prominent members of the President's cabinet COMBINED - Jay Carney claimed THAT HE KNEW THREE *DIFFERENT* HILARY ROSENS, suggesting that perhaps the 30+ number was an aggregate and not really visits by one person. Even Hilary Rosen had to laugh on camera during an interview when that comment was mentioned to her. She's been around a lot during her time in D.C., and she chuckled that to her knowledge, there was only ONE Hilary Rosen - and she was it. See:
(I hope the White House Press Corps grills Carney and demands that he identify the "three Hilary Rosens" he claims to know. It's not often they get an opportunity like this one to nail a Press Secretary in an actual LIE. Even if he DOES "know three Hilary Rosens," he is suggesting that all of them visited the White House. One would expect him to know if this is TRUE before he implies that.)
The bottom line is that the Dems KNOW this issue is potentially a big problem; they're in full damage control mode; and somebody finally got to Rosen and pressured her into an "apology." Until then, she was "standing by her statement" and with tunnel-vision she was missing the point. As you both are.
The point isn't about Bush, or 30-40 million dollars - or changing the subject as you are trying to do. It's about Rosen's dumb comments, and her thick-headedness in not admitting a mistake. The overwhelming majority of the American people see the point.
I'll stand with them.
I'm not trying to change the subject. I do not side with Ms. Rosen's comments. I do know, however, that every 'army' has one or more idiots in their ranks. Having served our country as you have done Sebe, you are probably well aware of this fact. For instance, take Republican Representative Allen West of Florida who just got thru calling Debra Wasserman chair woman of the Demo Party "vile" and "not even a lady." Couple that with West's holding steady that he believes "that 78-81 members of the Demo House are members of the Communist Party." Shades of McCarthyism if you ask me.
So, no Sebe. This quasi 'issue' presently swirling around Ms. Rosen's choice of words will not define the Democratic Campaign. As I noted above, in this age of 24-7 news it will not even be around this time next week.
Reverend Wright's (remember him?) comments did not sink BHO and neither will Rosen's.
I never said Rosen's remarks would "defined the Democratic campaign." But I DO believe that she should be held accountable for them - just as the Dems have been tagging every gaffe and blunder made by Dubya and everybody else on the right since time immemorial.
Rosen gets no pass from me - nor apparently does she from the vast majority of the American people. She was correct to say that we should end all "phony wars." I totally agree - ON BOTH SIDES they ought to end the "phony" talk of wars: on working moms and on women in general.
Bill Clinton's campaign had it right back in 1992 with their slogan: "It's the economy, stupid." This is EXACTLY what the Romneys were trying to point out this time around: that American women feel that the ECONOMY - not phony "wars on women" was the REAL issue. Rosen tried to obfuscate, change the subject, attack the messenger. She screwed the pooch.
If it was good enough for Clinton in 1992, it's good enough for Romney in 2012. THAT'S what the Dem strategists and the President's campaign people are worried about - that the people will see past the "phony wars" and focus on the REAL issues.
No, I won't give her a pass on her comments, and neither will the American people. Her comments won't "define the campaign" but they go a long way toward exposing the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to "restoring decency" in DC and in political campaigns, as well as showing that they will say anything - true or not - to tag the opposition negatively.
Unfortunately for them, Hillary Rosen "went to work for the opposition" on this one. Otherwise - why the fuss on the left to distance themselves from her and from her remarks?
As you know, Jimmy - a campaign is a "drip, drip, drip" of issues over a long period of time, and the side which can maintain the "riding time" advantage usually wins.
The Dems are worried that they have given up the "riding time" advantage with this one. I believe they are correct.
...and speaking of hypocrisy, check this out:
Apparently the President's own secretary pays a higher income tax rate than HE does. It will be interesting to see how they spin THIS one.
I know Sebe that you did not say Rosens remarks would "define the Democratic campaign." I said that in response to a comment because it IS, at this moment anyway, being discussed and "has legs" albeit temporary ones.
What is disturbing to me NOW in this discussion is your use of the word bifurcate! You and Liberty Drum aren"t related are you?
Yep - "No New Taxes" totally sunk Bush the Elder.
Regarding Rosen and the Dems: I don't know....those "strategists" and "consultants" on both sides just seem to hang around FOREVER. I predict she'll be like a "whack-a-mole" and pop up someplace else - or some other time. In the short term, she'll be that woman who said "stay-at-home moms never work a day in their life" (regardless of whether she ACTUALLY said that or not). If she had IMMEDIATELY clarifed what she (supposedly) REALLY meant, it might have cut the "legs" out from under the story, but because she stood by her comments she did herself in.
As to LD: I don't think we're related, but I'm not sure. I asked him where in PA he was from, since my maternal grandparents lived there - as did a pack of aunts and uncles on my mother's side. My mother was one of those "stay-at-home" types who I guess also "never worked a day in her life." (If she ever heard anyone say that, I'd fear for the speaker's life fer sure.)
...and come to think of it - my Mom and Dad bought a small business when I was in my late teens and the "stay-at-home" child-rearing was essentially done. They ran that business for about 15 years, with my Mom doing at least half (or probably more) of the work. So I guess she MAY have "actually worked a day in her life".....
...and the beat goes on:
(The last one is SO GOOD I'll cut and paste it here:)
"Ann Romney Doesn't Work?
Raising children is work. Shame on Democratic Strategist Hilary Rosen who claims that Ann Romney "actually never worked a day in her life." Talk about putting women down. Right after she claimed that the phrase, "war on women" is not put out there by the Democratic party, she goes to war, firing at Ann Romney. This is not about getting birth control or abortions. This is about not respecting a woman's work in raising five sons. Isn't it all about choice?
Hilary has a very narrow view of what makes a woman worthy of her praise. How very shallow and condemning. She continued her mocking, adding that Mitt Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."
I think if you ask many women who have worked in the workplace and have also worked at home raising kids, they will tell you that raising kids fulltime is harder than going to work. There is no coffee break, no lunch break, you work when you are sick and tired and you remain calm and pleasant and sleep deprived. I know. I raised five kids.
Many of us that have taken on that job have had to struggle with health problems along the way. Ann Romney has MS and has had breast cancer. The job is so demanding that you can become physically ill. But we push through. We get no salary, no pension, no worker's comp while raising the next generation. There is no respect for a mother, especially for a stay-at-home mother. The only respect the press gives a woman is when she fights for birth control and has a full time career, and the more prestigious, the better."
I wonder if they're anything like Hillary Cinton's legs?
...and here comes Rush Limburger:
I think it's well in-play for Rush to point out the double-standard in these types of stories. When he says something, everyone gets in a tissie. When Rosen says something, it's a "faux" story.
However, I would of used the reference from his own "fiasco" and not the murder case in FL. Might not of been the best analogy IMO.
Regardless of who said what and whenever it was said this upcoming election should focus on one very simple statement.
"ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID"
Great point TOT, economic issues will be paramount; however I don’t understand how the Obama administration can resort to a standard that it won’t even uphold in their own house!
See it here:
Most of us in this blogosphere stand for right or wrong, not left or right.
"Manufactured outrage" on the right meets "manufactured outrage" from the left. Turnabout is fair play. PHONY wars are transparent - as is spin, changing the subject, and obfuscation.
TOT is correct; It IS the economy. That was Ann Romney's message to Mitt, which he mentions OUT LOUD. This enrages the left because they KNOW this is the issue that can kill them in November. So they (Rosen) tries to dump on the messenger. She - and the Party for which she "strategizes" - gets the blowback - BIG TIME.
They got (and continue to get) what they deserve. The message on the ECONOMY can stick, and the lefties are scared to death about it.
More hypocrisy exposed:
As for "equal work for equal pay," Mr. Obama - as President of the United States - should set the example IN HIS OWN HOUSE. See:
And this INEQUALITY extended even back to the 2008 campaign, where it was demonstrated that the women who worked for candidate McCain were paid MORE than men ($1.04 for every dollar a man made); but men were paid more for their "equal work" than women in Obama's campaign. See:
It's the Dems and their supporters who are the REAL shills. As in the case of inequal pay in Obama's White House and Obama's 2008 campaign, the Dems portray themselves as the Party of the underdog; the party of the poor; the party of minorities; the party of women.
But when you look at the FACTS - it's all HYPOCRISY! Women are paid less, and are underrepresented - as are minorities - in the Obama administration:
So don't listen to what they say, watch what they DO. The Dems always try to make themselves look good by tearing down their opposition. That may help THEM, but it does little for the constituencies they claim to be championing.
I'm not saying that the Republicans are God's gift to women and minorities. But what I AM saying is that you should watch the Dems closely - they are like confidence men who pat you on the back with one hand and pick your pocket with the other. The only interest they generally serve is THEIR OWN.
An amazingly inconsistent argument which is, true to form, childish and whiny. If I didn't know better, I would think you were a paid shill for the GOP.
A perfect example of S.I.N.
Switch the Subject
Ignore the Facts
Hi Funky: It's been a bad week for the Dems, so I'm not surprised at the tactic. To be honest, the both do the same thing when things are going bad. It's right out of the political "strategist" playbook.
The way to combat it is to keep pounding away with the FACTS. It's easy to play on stereotypes, but sooner or later - when the FACTS stare people in the face - the old stereotypes break down and opinions can actually change.
That's something else the Dems are scared to death of. When they are seen for what they really are, they can't draw such a great distinction between themselves and the Repubs.
I've said it many times before on this here blog site. I believe (with few exceptions) they ALL are crooks and will do and say anything to get elected.
I just prefer my crooks to be less hypocritical, that's all. Or paraphrasing Rick to Ugarte:
"I don't mind a shill; but I object to a cut-rate one."
...and the administration's lousy week CONTINUES:
Brother Jimmy, I prefer the crook that stands by their word and upholds the US Constitution. It is written so that the common man such as you and I can understand it.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Obamacare is unconstitutional just by this amendment; however our crooks have become so progressive we have to include the individual mandate for the Supreme Court to get involved for a ruling to strike it down.
What Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts was legal to do except for the mandate; however the people wanted it and Romney only targeted individuals with no coverage at all, Obamacare has made healthcare costs go up even more by instituting it to everyone without a choice of your own, or by your healthcare provider.
The people didn’t want Obamacare and he rammed it down our throats without any Bipartisanship and without Constitutional muster.
I’m really disappointed that our first Black President didn’t bring people together; tensions around the country are even higher because of his double standards to Women, Class Warfare, Anti Capitalism, Republicans and the Constitution.
Martin Luther King Jr. would be disappointed in him if he were alive, IMHO!
"So Sebe: which party of crooks do you prefer running the country?"
Ah yes, Jimmy - paraphrasing Dr. Lanning to Det. Spooner in "I, Robot":
"That is the right question."
The answer is:
I still prefer a DIVIDED "Government of Crooks," with one party controlling Congress and the other party in the White House. I also don't want one party controlling the White House for more than two terms in a row. This gives them too much of an opportunity to stack the Supreme Court with their own particular brand of ideological hacks.
We ALMOST have it correct now. If there's a change in November, my first choice would be for the Dems to retain the WH and the Repubs to hold the House and gain the Senate. If by some miracle the Repubs gain the WH, then I'd want the Dems to retain the Senate and to gain the House.
I think history has shown that when one party controls everything it's a prescription for disaster. What we need is each party controlling a big piece of government, but without the acrimony and with a willingness to COMPROMISE.
"That's my wish, Jimmy. That's my wish. And is there enough magic out there in the moonlight to make this dream come true?"
"Brother Jimmy, I prefer the crook that stands by their word and upholds the US Constitution. It is written so that the common man such as you and I can understand it."
That's the kind of crook I prefer, too. Unfortunately, in our "say anything to get elected" political world where the dollar gets you the best politicians that money can buy, a public servant who actually keeps his or her word is a scarcity, indeed.
This is perfectly exemplified by the current President of the United States. It is sad to say, but his recent "open mic" dialogue with the Russian president says it all. Only AFTER he is no longer accountable to the people (except through impeachment) will he have the "flexibility" to negotiate on (or away) missile defense.
As I mentioned in another blog string, 50 years ago this type of dialogue would have immediately triggered a public outcry; charges of treason; and a demand for impeachment.
Times haven't really changed - only the "tolerance" of the American people has changed. We get the type of government we demand. When our politicians fail to even live up to the low standards we set for them, we have only ourselves to blame.
....and now he's going to "diversify":