Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General A full-bore attack on women's rights

Out of context? Hardly. In the real world, when one comments about another, saying , "she never worked a day in her life", it is almost always meant to be derogatory with the intent of marginalizing her or someone relying on her. This is especially true when engaged in by a political party operative. As to what you present as Rosen's "complete response", that is nothing more than a morning-after damage control effort motivated by an Democratic avalanche of rebuke from the White House on down. And yet, there is an interesting bit in it which reads:

"As Ruth Marcus noted in her column yesterday in the Washington Post, Romney, when asked last week about the gender gap, twice said he wished his wife could take the question."My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me," Romney told newspaper editors, "and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy."

This is interesting because if Ann Romney is involving herself in the campaign, one has to assume she is both listening to and talking to women. What she learns she would pass on to her husband as gleaned knowledge. It would be perfectly valid and does not require her to have experienced directly the lifes of less well off women. Yet Rosen, being a political operative and thus engaged in the business of deceiving people, switches words and makes it about "women who are struggling economically" and "women's economic issue", instead of "the issue women care about most is the economy". Maybe yo do not see the difference, but the Dem operative is basically saying that women are not sophisticated enough to be concerned with the economy, but rather are only interested in what the Dems can offer them. Doe this Dem operative think the economy in general is to much of a subject for women? Or, is it that the operative knows the segment of the female demographic Dems are desperate to hold onto?

As to your remarks about her being a "pampered daughter" and "pampered wife", I am not sure how you would know how pampered her life has been, but she apparently has had the strength of character to continue an active life after having been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis 16 years ago -- not to mention a bout with breast cancer.
Yours,
Issodhos

Rosen is a big girl and knows politics ain't beanbag, but she deserved some face-saving space and time to come to the only right conclusion -- to apologize to Mrs. Romney for saying she "had never worked a day in her life" -- which were she her own client, she would have demanded immediately, as she is one smart cookie.

Yet before the commercial break, the Obama high command was in high dudgeon. Let's do a little exercise in decoding Obama-world: Have you ever seen them horsewhip a blundering man with the ferocity they laid into Rosen? A bit of irony in the War on Women world, no?

Just for comparison's sake to make my point about the character of an operation, when I made a notoriously stupid blunder (one of too many to count) in the Bush 41 campaign, and the chattering classes' hairs were ablaze demanding my immediate tar-and-feathering, President Bush himself called me and told me to keep fighting, and to make just a tad fewer wild throws; he put out the word that our own staff was to lay off.

According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, Obama is leading Mitt Romney by 20 points (58 to 38 percent) and Rick Santorum by 26 points (61 to 35 percent) among women voters. During the presidential primaries in March 2008, women said they preferred Obama or Hilary Clinton over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by a margin of 14 points (53 to 39 percent).

Romney and allies cried that Democrats had declared "war on moms” after a Democratic strategist said Romney's wife hadn't worked a day in her life. Romney's camp said this meant Democrats don't value stay at home moms and motherhood, while they believe that women who stay home are doing real work.

But for every Romney action, there is an equal and opposite Romney reaction, and this morning, MSNBC's Chris Hayes dug up a video of Romney from just January in which the Republican presidential candidate said he wanted to require women who receive welfare to work outside the home, even if their children are very young. He told a New Hampshire audience:

"I wanted to increase the work requirement,” said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 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 day care 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.”

...a video of Romney from just January in which the Republican presidential candidate said he wanted to require women who receive welfare to work outside the home, even if their children are very young. He told a New Hampshire audience:

"I wanted to increase the work requirement,” said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 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 day care 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.”

He brought a central player and key supporter: his wife, Ann, who stayed home to raise their five sons....

In St. Louis, Mitt Romney began his 24-minute speech by calling his wife “a hero” and “my sweetheart,” adding: “I happen to believe all moms are working moms.”