Oh, F*** Ann Romney

[Still a Democrat]

...

Fuck her. And fuck everyone, from the Obama administration to Fox "news" numbskulls, who piled on what Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Hilary Rosen said on Wednesday night. Rosen didn't say a goddamned thing that was wrong when she offered that Ann Romney "has actually never worked a day in her life."

Ann Romney has lived a privileged, pampered life and she has done nothing that anyone would associate with a "job," and that includes her stay-at-home mothering, readily assisted by nannies and servants. She has a degree in French from Harvard and her major activity is dressage (which, apparently, is some fancy horse thing involving riding crops and jodhpurs and jaunty hats). Rosen was addressing Mitt Romney's remark that he listens to Ann on economic issues affecting women. Mitt Romney getting advice on the economy from his wife is like him getting foreign policy advice from Seamus, the roof-riding family dog. (Although, if you think about it, "Shit yourself until someone hoses you off" isn't bad advice for a nation.)

Are we really doing this again? Are we really having some worthless fucking debate over how hard it is to be a stay-at-home parent? President Obama said, "There's no tougher job than being a mom." Really? Ask a coal miner. Ask a sweatshop worker. It's fucking stupid. Are we just back to Hillary Clinton and the motherfucking cookies? Oh, wait, Michelle Malkin's quoting that 1992 remark, so the Rude Pundit supposes that we are.

...

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/04/o...ut-of.html

[There Is No Spoon]

Thank you rude pundit.

Fuck Ann Romney and her 5 maids.

Elitist hypocrite.

[PoliticalTiger]

And really, when you think about it, for many people, being a '"stay at home" mom (or dad) is a luxury. Why? Because the Mitt Rmoney's of the world can afford to have their spouses stay at home, but the other 99% of us have to go to work, both mom and dad, because while the Mitt Rmoney's of the world income is rising, the income for the rest of us is going down!

For instance, the pukes are dead set against even raising the minimum wage, so how the hell do they expect dad to go out and work for minimum wage and be able to support a stay at home mom and the kids?

And I'd like to see Willard answer this: How many potential "stay at home moms" did Mittens and his fellow corporate raiders prevent from being able to stay at home after he and his thugs took over a company and fired all the workers? While he was lining his pockets with more money than he could ever possibly need, the people who did the real work, the hard work, the work that made him so rich he had to stash his money in the Cayman Islands and put in Swiss bank accounts, those people were struggling just to put food on the table every night!

Now all of a sudden he cares about "stay at home moms?" His actions show otherwise!

[Treestar]

(04-14-2012 02:42 PM)PoliticalTiger Wrote:  And really, when you think about it, for many people, being a '"stay at home" mom (or dad) is a luxury. Why? Because the Mitt Rmoney's of the world can afford to have their spouses stay at home, but the other 99% of us have to go to work, both mom and dad, because while the Mitt Rmoney's of the world income is rising, the income for the rest of us is going down!

This is true. I think it can be a good thing to have a stay at home parent, but the other parent has to have an income that can support that, so it's a luxury. As to how difficult it is and how it gives the parent experience in 100 different job titles, on the other hand, you are your own boss and can do the job with a minimum of work possible - there's no proof to say each SAHP reads to the kids, teaches them, isn't behind on the housework, etc.

[KonaKane]

Shamelessly stealing this from Catherine McClendon, over at Facebook....

[sandnsea]

Raising kids is work. "never worked a day in her life" is a comment as stupid to make as Biden's "shiny and clean". It's just politically stupid. Biden isn't a racist and Rosen isn't against stay at home moms. Doesn't mean you get a pass when you say something stupid.

Ann Romney hasn't a clue what it is to raise kids and work two jobs and still need food stamps and energy assistance and health assistance to make ends meet. Why couldn't Hilary have just said the truth instead of going for the gratuitous slam.

[OptimistesMaddie]

(04-14-2012 03:46 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Raising kids is work. "never worked a day in her life" is a comment as stupid to make as Biden's "shiny and clean". It's just politically stupid. Biden isn't a racist and Rosen isn't against stay at home moms. Doesn't mean you get a pass when you say something stupid.

Ann Romney hasn't a clue what it is to raise kids and work two jobs and still need food stamps and energy assistance and health assistance to make ends meet. Why couldn't Hilary have just said the truth instead of going for the gratuitous slam.

admitted she made a poor choice of words to communicate what she was trying to say. She apologized and that should have been case closed.

The Repuglicans NEVER apologize for the shit they say.

Ann Romney has never had to choose between the electric bill and food for the table. So for Romney to say he relies on her for the status of women....well that is the joke of all of this.

The Repugs always play victim...always

[PoliticalTiger]

Here's a couple more from FB:

[Blue_Roses]

I think what gets the stay-at-home moms fired up is that while it is no way comparable to the hard work of a soldier, coal miner, construction worker, etc., it's often not felt like it's appreciated like these other outside the home jobs. And often, there is the sacrifice between baby formula or continuing a wardrobe that resembles the picked over clearance rack at Wal-mart. (If ONLY, this was the only sacrifice) Sometimes it comes down to what is financially better since childcare is so expensive.

I understand what Hillary Rosen was saying and she's right.Ann Romney never had to choose whether to pay the electricity or take a sick child to the doctor with no health insurance. She could never understand that.

I also think that the stay-at-home-mom miff comes when moms feel they are sacrificing for the "investment" of being able to raise the kids, but not getting that appreciation that comes with the work of an "outside" job. I guess I speak from experience with this one. My spouse and I had a conversation about this very topic the other day. When he comes in tired from "outside" work, his day of "work" is over. A mom's job is 24-7. (unless you are lucky enough to have a spouse who helps with the kids)

Even working part-time while the kids are in school can get overwhelming for moms at times.I don't know how people-like my mom who worked nights as a nurse, so she could be home in the day-do/did it without going completely insane. This is where Ann Romney is severely lacking in experience.

With that said,yes, it's often a choice, but when you think of raising a gifted son to be president one day, it's worth it.

[janedrake]

I agree - Ann Romney needs to get over herself - not because of what Rosen said, but because of her immediate use of the fundamental dishonest tactics of the Romney campaign. If she has a degree from Harvard, surely she is smart enough to actually understand what Rosen said - and it's not what she claims to be so piqued about. But because the Romneys are running a campaign built on a core principle of dishonesty, the choice became - does the Obama campaign respond in a way that disarms the Romneys of claiming that Democrats are against moms who stay at home (which the Romneys have done anyway, but it can now be added to their canon of lies) or does the Obama campaign go on the constant defense, having to insist all the time that they're for *all* moms -- which the news cycle will find less interesting -- and which would never be equally covered. We all probably realize that if Democrats did not distance themselves from Rosen's remark, this thing would balloon into a circus, the net result of which would be the Romneys would be successful in painting both Obamas -- even Michelle -- as hostile to stay-at-home moms -- even though Rosen is not working for the Obama campaign. It's frustrating, but I understand why Democrats distanced themselves. No doubt, Romney will still run ads seeking to link the Prez to Rosen's remarks, but they will be like all his ads so far - completely refutable for their dishonesty.

[PoliticalTiger]

(04-14-2012 04:42 PM)janedrake Wrote:  I agree - Ann Romney needs to get over herself - not because of what Rosen said, but because of her immediate use of the fundamental dishonest tactics of the Romney campaign. If she has a degree from Harvard, surely she is smart enough to actually understand what Rosen said - and it's not what she claims to be so piqued about. But because the Romneys are running a campaign built on a core principle of dishonesty, the choice became - does the Obama campaign respond in a way that disarms the Romneys of claiming that Democrats are against moms who stay at home (which the Romneys have done anyway, but it can now be added to their canon of lies) or does the Obama campaign go on the constant defense, having to insist all the time that they're for *all* moms -- which the news cycle will find less interesting -- and which would never be equally covered. We all probably realize that if Democrats did not distance themselves from Rosen's remark, this thing would balloon into a circus, the net result of which would be the Romneys would be successful in painting both Obamas -- even Michelle -- as hostile to stay-at-home moms -- even though Rosen is not working for the Obama campaign. It's frustrating, but I understand why Democrats distanced themselves. No doubt, Romney will still run ads seeking to link the Prez to Rosen's remarks, but they will be like all his ads so far - completely refutable for their dishonesty.

I agree completely, especially with this line: "the Romneys are running a campaign built on a core principle of dishonesty."

[sandnsea]

We should be talking about birth control and the numbskull in Wisconsin with his pay equity attack and disrespect of working mothers and AZ's abortion warnings and web sites with dead fetuses and Lily Ledbetter and a whole host of women's issues. Which is why Hilary Rosen needs to just apologize and change the damn subject.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-14-2012 04:49 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  ... Which is why Hilary Rosen needs to just apologize and change the damn subject.

"needs to" - you mean did apologize - twice in fact.

[sandnsea]

(04-14-2012 04:57 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 04:49 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  ... Which is why Hilary Rosen needs to just apologize and change the damn subject.

"needs to" - you mean did apologize - twice in fact.

She apologized - and then she made some flippant comment about the phony controversy - which means there was no real apology in the first place. She either gets that she made a mistake, or she doesn't.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-14-2012 07:30 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 04:57 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  "needs to" - you mean did apologize - twice in fact.

She apologized - and then she made some flippant comment about the phony controversy - which means there was no real apology in the first place. She either gets that she made a mistake, or she doesn't.

I happen to agree with her, it's a phony ass controversy, so I'm not sure I care what you consider an acceptable apology.

[sandnsea]

(04-14-2012 08:06 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 07:30 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  She apologized - and then she made some flippant comment about the phony controversy - which means there was no real apology in the first place. She either gets that she made a mistake, or she doesn't.

I happen to agree with her, it's a phony ass controversy, so I'm not sure I care what you consider an acceptable apology.

If you think it's a phony controversy, then you probably aren't a very good judge of an acceptable apology either.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-14-2012 11:32 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 08:06 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I happen to agree with her, it's a phony ass controversy, so I'm not sure I care what you consider an acceptable apology.

If you think it's a phony controversy, then you probably aren't a very good judge of an acceptable apology either.

Oh, it may be a controversy all right.

And the media is an unbiased source of fair reporting.

Oh, and I have a bridge I need to get rid of - any takers?

[KonaKane]

(04-14-2012 11:32 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  If you think it's a phony controversy, then you probably aren't a very good judge of an acceptable apology either.

Perhaps she should simply throw herself on a pike in public, the way Anthony Weiner was did. That always serves us really well.

[OptimistesMaddie]

(04-15-2012 12:13 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 11:32 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  If you think it's a phony controversy, then you probably aren't a very good judge of an acceptable apology either.

Perhaps she should simply throw herself on a pike in public, the way Anthony Weiner was did. That always serves us really well.

Many Democratic folks will throw their own under the bus so we appear perfect and untouched. We should stop doing this, the Republicans have done far worse than Hillary and Anthoney and yet......many of them still retain their positions. What is wrong with this picture?

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 12:44 PM)OptimistesMaddie Wrote:  Many Democratic folks will throw their own under the bus so we appear perfect and untouched. ....

THIS. Thank you.

[Still a Democrat]

(04-14-2012 07:30 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 04:57 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  "needs to" - you mean did apologize - twice in fact.

She apologized - and then she made some flippant comment about the phony controversy - which means there was no real apology in the first place. She either gets that she made a mistake, or she doesn't.

The apology wasn't great, but even a better one wouldn't have slowed down the controversy very much.

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 11:08 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 07:30 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  She apologized - and then she made some flippant comment about the phony controversy - which means there was no real apology in the first place. She either gets that she made a mistake, or she doesn't.

The apology wasn't great, but even a better one wouldn't have slowed down the controversy very much.

Maybe. Maybe not. But there is a simple fact that it's always a stupid idea to attack a mother and defending it is what has continued the controversy. They sure do have women looking at their pocketbooks instead of their reproductive rights though.

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 12:44 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Maybe. Maybe not. But there is a simple fact that it's always a stupid idea to attack a mother and defending it is what has continued the controversy. They sure do have women looking at their pocketbooks instead of their reproductive rights though.

She didn't attack a mother. Go back and listen to the entirety of her comments. She attacked someone of privilege, who is masquerading under the guise of a mother who actually had to work to see that her children had food, clothing and shelter from week to week.

Huge difference.

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 01:02 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 12:44 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Maybe. Maybe not. But there is a simple fact that it's always a stupid idea to attack a mother and defending it is what has continued the controversy. They sure do have women looking at their pocketbooks instead of their reproductive rights though.

She didn't attack a mother. Go back and listen to the entirety of her comments. She attacked someone of privilege, who is masquerading under the guise of a mother who actually had to work to see that her children had food, clothing and shelter from week to week.

Huge difference.

See. That is disgusting. Ann Romney is a mother. I don't care how much money she has, you don't raise 5 kids and not go through hectic days and illness and worries over your kids. She's a mother. Don't attack it.

You don't have to "work a day in your life" to understand the economic diffiulties of mothers. There are low income married women who choose to stay home. I've stayed home at varying points because I felt the kids needed the extra structure and discipline. My step-son required someone at home, it was a condition of transfer of custody from his mother and child services. You don't know the circumstances of every mother in the country. STFU about mothers. Talk about economic circumstances instead.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-15-2012 01:11 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:02 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  She didn't attack a mother. Go back and listen to the entirety of her comments. She attacked someone of privilege, who is masquerading under the guise of a mother who actually had to work to see that her children had food, clothing and shelter from week to week.

Huge difference.

See. That is disgusting. Ann Romney is a mother. I don't care how much money she has, you don't raise 5 kids and not go through hectic days and illness and worries over your kids. She's a mother. Don't attack it.

You don't have to "work a day in your life" to understand the economic diffiulties of mothers. There are low income married women who choose to stay home. I've stayed home at varying points because I felt the kids needed the extra structure and discipline. My step-son required someone at home, it was a condition of transfer of custody from his mother and child services. You don't know the circumstances of every mother in the country. STFU about mothers. Talk about economic circumstances instead.

Yeah Kona, just shut the fuck up, you dare to criticize that elitist 5 house, 5 nanny mom telling the poor folks "let them eat cake". Fuck that - she's open to political attack now that they're using her as a political tool.

Romney Flashback: Poor Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside The Home Or Lose Welfare

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 01:16 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:11 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  See. That is disgusting. Ann Romney is a mother. I don't care how much money she has, you don't raise 5 kids and not go through hectic days and illness and worries over your kids. She's a mother. Don't attack it.

You don't have to "work a day in your life" to understand the economic diffiulties of mothers. There are low income married women who choose to stay home. I've stayed home at varying points because I felt the kids needed the extra structure and discipline. My step-son required someone at home, it was a condition of transfer of custody from his mother and child services. You don't know the circumstances of every mother in the country. STFU about mothers. Talk about economic circumstances instead.

Yeah Kona, just shut the fuck up, you dare to criticize that elitist 5 house, 5 nanny mom telling the poor folks "let them eat cake". Fuck that - she's open to political attack now that they're using her as a political tool.

Romney Flashback: Poor Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside The Home Or Lose Welfare

Why Democrats Lose. Reason #1,346.

Yeah. STFU About MOTHERS. Hello? I specifially said to stick to economic issues.

We're supposed to be the party of sense and reason and decency. I don't know a goddamn thing about Ann Romney. I'm sure Eleanor and Jackie and Teresa and Elizabeth and Hillary and a host of other Democratic women had help raising their kids. Doesn't mean they weren't amazing champions of women and children. Your anger towards elitism is misguided in this instance.

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 01:30 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Yeah. STFU About MOTHERS. Hello? I specifially said to stick to economic issues.

Economics entangled with Ann Romney's motherly duties IS the issue. Specifically, how you cannot compare her and her five nannies and three houses and multiple cadillacs to the trevails of a single mother of three, busting her ass waiting tables to make sure the kids have food and shelter.

Does this REALLY have to be spelled out for you, or have you yet again stubbornly argued yourself into a corner?

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 01:44 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:30 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Yeah. STFU About MOTHERS. Hello? I specifially said to stick to economic issues.

Economics entangled with Ann Romney's motherly duties IS the issue. Specifically, how you cannot compare her and her five nannies and three houses and multiple cadillacs to the trevails of a single mother of three, busting her ass waiting tables to make sure the kids have food and shelter.

Does this REALLY have to be spelled out for you, or have you yet again stubbornly argued yourself into a corner?

I think you've attacked me 3-4 times today alone - so I think that entitles me to a go fuck yourself. God you're an ass.

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 09:07 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I think you've attacked me 3-4 times today alone - so I think that entitles me to a go fuck yourself. God you're an ass.

I would have preferred a point that goes somewhere, but if it makes you feel better, that's fine.

[janedrake]

Cheers, PT!

[jaxx]

St. Ann is off limits, as is Willard's religion and his being for abortion before he was against it, as is the Romney tax returns, etc. Anything that makes the Romney's uncomfortable is off limits. But corporations are people, my friends.

[Treestar]

I thought Mittens brought Ann into it, when he said he consults with her about women's issues. Of course that's dumb of Mittens. She's no expert on economics or anything else that I know of.