Okay this "War on Women" thing is getting ridiculous

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,802
Likes
62,556
#1
So a Dem strategist says Ann Romney never worked a day in her life and is soundly and swiftly criticized - by Dems! Even Axlerod called the comments offensive.

The backlash was brutal and swift.
David Axelrod, Obama's top campaign strategist, tweeted that Rosen's comments were "inappropriate and offensive." The president's campaign manager, Jim Messina, said Rosen should apologize. And the Democratic National Committee downplayed any connection to Rosen or her firm.
Click to expand...

Ann Romney fires back at never-worked charge - Welcome to Charter.net

Ugh, the pandering is sickening.
 
#2
#2
Sounds more like something that would come out of Wasserman-Schultz(sp) mouth.
 
#3
#3
love how the WH has distanced themselves from her ever though she appears to enjoy visiting them quite often. Maybe she's just taking the tour
 
#4
#4
I thought Obama's response was that te Obamas didn't have the luxury of Michelle not working. no?
 
#5
#5
She's a fool for having said that simply because it has given rise to another fake controversy. No one would say that being a stay at home Mom to 5 boys isn't tough work so efforts to portray her comments as claiming that are garbage.

Her mistake was in equating not having a paying job as meaning no effort or contribution. Her point should be that Ann Romney cant meaningfully talk about balancing family and career/income because she has never had to.

50 years ago plenty of families could get by with man's income and had the luxury of choosing work or stay at home. But over time, to make ends meet, many women MUST get a job.

She is a fool for mixing that up, the GOP is taking advantage. Going to happen 100 more times between now and Nov, on both sides.
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
Her point should be that Ann Romney cant meaningfully talk about balancing family and career/income because she has never had to.
Click to expand...

and that would be ignorant as well. Even with only one spouse working you have $X coming in and bills that need to be paid. She has a "job" (put in quotes for all the libs who might be reading) and she understands household finances.

What you posted is akin to saying if you haven't been a college football coach you can't criticize the play-calling
 
#8
#8
utvolpj said:
and that would be ignorant as well. Even with only one spouse working you have $X coming in and bills that need to be paid. She has a "job" (put in quotes for all the libs who might be reading) and she understands household finances.

What you posted is akin to saying if you haven't been a college football coach you can't criticize the play-calling
Click to expand...


Household finances are like the US economy? Really?

Having Ann Romney be a spokesman about economic issues is like having me be a spokesperson about Russian timber. Neither of us is qualified.

That does not mean, however, that she has not had to work hard to raise a family, and it doesn't mean I haven't worked hard at my career. It just means that doesn't translate to other topics.
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
Household finances are like the US economy? Really?

Having Ann Romney be a spokesman about economic issues is like having me be a spokesperson about Russian timber. Neither of us is qualified.

That does not mean, however, that she has not had to work hard to raise a family, and it doesn't mean I haven't worked hard at my career. It just means that doesn't translate to other topics.
Click to expand...

it translates as well as Obama's knowledge on economics. What had he done prior that showed he had a clue?
 
#11
#11
utvolpj said:
it translates as well as Obama's knowledge on economics. What had he done prior that showed he had a clue?
Click to expand...

well, he did sign a couple of book deals that eventually made him a millionaire. Then he inked a real estate deal with Tony Rezko...
 
#12
#12
utvolpj said:
it translates as well as Obama's knowledge on economics. What had he done prior that showed he had a clue?
Click to expand...


We haven't had an economist in that office in, well, basically ever. Would be nice if candidates talked more about who would advise them on such issues.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
50 years ago plenty of families could get by with man's income and had the luxury of choosing work or stay at home. But over time, to make ends meet, many women MUST get a job.

She is a fool for mixing that up, the GOP is taking advantage. Going to happen 100 more times between now and Nov, on both sides.
Click to expand...

That's not always true in a two parent home. I know a few couples that after they pay a second car payment, insurance, gas, lunch and outragious day care costs they are breaking even or going into the hole because the wife works.

Many women feel that they must work to have a meaningfull life, this feeling brought to you by the liberal left.....
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
She is a fool for mixing that up, the GOP is taking advantage. Going to happen 100 more times between now and Nov, on both sides.
Click to expand...

My point is that both sides are taking advantage of this incident. The only reason the WH jumped on this was it was a chance to show how "pro-woman" they are. If the woman issue wasn't part of their strategy you wouldn't here a peep from them about this.

Both sides are going to pander to women this cycle. It will just get more and more ridiculous.
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
My point is that both sides are taking advantage of this incident. The only reason the WH jumped on this was it was a chance to show how "pro-woman" they are. If the woman issue wasn't part of their strategy you wouldn't here a peep from them about this.

Both sides are going to pander to women this cycle. It will just get more and more ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Well no, actually the way this happened was that Obama has about a 20 point lead among women voters and the Dems were exploiting some GOP missteps on issues of interest to women.

On Tuesday, Romney trotted out his 92.3 percent number in an effort to try to stave that off, this broad made her comment, and the GOP gleefully jumped on it as in tandem with the unemployment numbers to try to double whammy Obama.

The irony is that over time the 92.3 thing would probably have had much more staying power in the campaign. I mean, its a manipulated number and presented in a very misleading way, but it at least could be something objective to play with.

But, as usual,GOP overreaching on the thing that got them into the news cycle for one day instead of picking the battle that could smolder for a month.
 
#17
#17
I would actually consider supporting Romney if he campaigned to end feminist entitlement programs.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
Well no, actually the way this happened was that Obama has about a 20 point lead among women voters and the Dems were exploiting some GOP missteps on issues of interest to women.

On Tuesday, Romney trotted out his 92.3 percent number in an effort to try to stave that off, this broad made her comment, and the GOP gleefully jumped on it as in tandem with the unemployment numbers to try to double whammy Obama.

The irony is that over time the 92.3 thing would probably have had much more staying power in the campaign. I mean, its a manipulated number and presented in a very misleading way, but it at least could be something objective to play with.

But, as usual,GOP overreaching on the thing that got them into the news cycle for one day instead of picking the battle that could smolder for a month.
Click to expand...

dang you are a drama queen
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
Well no, actually the way this happened was that Obama has about a 20 point lead among women voters and the Dems were exploiting some GOP missteps on issues of interest to women.

On Tuesday, Romney trotted out his 92.3 percent number in an effort to try to stave that off, this broad made her comment, and the GOP gleefully jumped on it as in tandem with the unemployment numbers to try to double whammy Obama.

The irony is that over time the 92.3 thing would probably have had much more staying power in the campaign. I mean, its a manipulated number and presented in a very misleading way, but it at least could be something objective to play with.

But, as usual,GOP overreaching on the thing that got them into the news cycle for one day instead of picking the battle that could smolder for a month.
Click to expand...

Well no actually a Dem strategist made this comment about Romney's wife (which is not that big of deal IMHO) and immediately Dems jumped all over here so they could continue bolstering their strategy of being "women focused".

Likewise, the GOP jumped on it too (which they would do anyway since it was a partisan shot).

The opposing party jumping on this is to be expected (see Fluke). The story is the smackdown by Dems.
 
#22
#22
speaking of the "war on women"

Hostile Workplace | Washington Free Beacon

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.
Click to expand...
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
She's a fool for having said that simply because it has given rise to another fake controversy. No one would say that being a stay at home Mom to 5 boys isn't tough work so efforts to portray her comments as claiming that are garbage.

Her mistake was in equating not having a paying job as meaning no effort or contribution. Her point should be that Ann Romney cant meaningfully talk about balancing family and career/income because she has never had to.

50 years ago plenty of families could get by with man's income and had the luxury of choosing work or stay at home. But over time, to make ends meet, many women MUST get a job.

She is a fool for mixing that up, the GOP is taking advantage. Going to happen 100 more times between now and Nov, on both sides.
Click to expand...

yes thanks to endless taxation, regulations and entitlements, we've effectively made everything more expensive for everyone to live here.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top