by request.

Chris requested, and I'm answering. 

what did she request?

Commentary on the whole Rosen v. Romney thing. My gut instinct was to just let it pass over. Or as I summed up my thoughts to Chris in an email:

"Liberal attacks conservative because liberal has hidden agenda to prop up, including the re-election of a liberal who might not have actually DONE anything to help the agenda supported by the first liberal, but hey, it's better than the conservative regardless."

Which is how I felt about it. Hilary Rosen is a lobbyist and agitator (Wikipedia nicely calls her a "pundit" instead) with a agenda. Period. What she says or doesn't say doesn't mean anything to me, any more than what I say or don't say means to her.

Of course, I haven't visited the White House 37 times over the last four years.¹ So what do I know?

Anyway, supposedly her appearance on CNN is what's caused all the hubbub. In this digital age, we all know what you say gets flashed around the world in 80 seconds and this is no exception.

So when she opened her mouth and said:

"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 why do we worry about their future."

… it's no wonder that the innerwebz went white hot in a matter of hours with shots back (Mrs. Romney), repudiation (David Axelrod) and outright condemnation.² 

I will say right here, in print, that I was particularly glad to read of both POTUS and FLOTUS adding to the condemnation. While I don't doubt that coming to Ann Romney's side was more of a political manoeuvre than anything else, they could have simply sat quietly while the war raged around them.³ 

so on with the war on women.

Yeah, but that's not what's bugging me. That's what all the media and the pundits have glommed on to, but I see more in this.

Hilary Rosen isn't just demeaning women who choose to stay at home with their kids. SAHMs have become largely immune to that sort of criticism, because the tactics of nearly every "feminist" out there is to call them betrayers of the womanhood. "We've worked so hard for decades to give you the right to a career and you sit here wearing an apron and eating bon bons instead?" Nobody's buying that crap anymore.

If that was really all a SAHM did, soap operas wouldn't be getting cancelled left and right. And trust me, as someone who's been essentially at home for the last three years, it ain't all it's cracked up to be. But that, my dears, is a different post. One titled, "My Choice Is Only Valid If It's On Your Agenda."

What no one else has picked up on – or are choosing to sidestep – is the class warfare liberally sprinkled on top of Ms. Rosen's comments. What she's really saying is that Mitt Romney is clueless on economic issues (because he's rich) and so he has to consult his wife (who is equally clueless because she's never had to have a job of her own – because she's rich). 

Of course, it's typical liberal hypocrisy again, because Rosen has been in high-level, high-paying executive positions for at least the last 25 years, and probably never has to worry about money herself. But that doesn't matter, because she's a Democrat, and everyone knows they only care about the little guy (pfah), and they can say what they want without fear of being called out for it.⁴

Romney isn't who I want to be the candidate, but he's now the heir presumptive and there's not a lot I can do about it. That said, at least he's run businesses and knows how money works. (More than you can say about the Anointed One.) What Ann Romney has or hasn't done with her life is irrelevant to me because if you've chosen to be a SAHM as she did, you've had to run a household. And whether that kind of "running" means managing your housekeepers or clipping coupons, economic issues are very relevant.

"…how do we feed our kids,"

Whether you're feeding five sons (good thing they're rich!) or one girl, you worry about feeding them. No, maybe Mrs. Romney didn't lie awake at night trying to figure out what she was putting in lunchboxes because there wasn't any food in the house. But she's had to balance household accounts. She's had to know what things cost and how much she had and how she had to stretch it. (Maybe she's never needed to pinch pennies, but if I had been stocking a fridge for five boys, I might have been investing heavily in padlocks….) Every woman has to do that. To say otherwise is insulting.

"… how do we send them to school,"

We send them and hope for the best. We get involved when we need to. We teach them at home if we have to. We reinforce the good and reteach the bad. Any mother does – or should. To say that throughout the nearly twenty years her sons were in school that Mrs. Romney never worried about them is ridiculous. To say that a SAHM has it easy because she doesn't have the kids around and can do anything she wants is ludicrous. To insinuate a lack of concern because money = private schools and (usually) a better education is class warfare, pure and simple. I doubt that Ms. Rosen's kids go to public schools.

"…why do we worry about their future."

Because, Ms. Rosen, people like you espouse agendas and push policies that target and destroy any chance of them having a decent future. Ann Romney is certainly smart enough to see that and fear for her grandchildren. Maybe they'll have a substantial inheritance; maybe they won't. They'll still be burdened for the rest of their lives – like my kid – with debt they never voted for, a deficit that is growing every minute, more and more restrictions on their natural rights, and the repercussions of bad foreign policy moves made by people unqualifed and unfit to make those crucial decisions. Mrs. Romney sees that. I see it. Millions of other women see it. And we're pissed off. 

How dare you marginalize us. How dare you insult us. Just because you sit in your high-falutin' office, surrounded by people who kiss your ass for the sake of a paycheck, paid to be an official mouthpiece for a corrupt bunch of thieves, liars, and imbeciles – it doesn't give you unlimited insight into anyone else's life or concerns. Whatever you may think, Ms. Rosen, you don't know it all.

In fact, when it comes to real life and the real concerns of real women, I'm convinced you don't know anything. 

_____

1. Mind you, Press Secretary Carney says it could have been any one of four Hilary Rosens who've stopped by to say hello, but then, he says a lot of things that don't add up. Four Hilary Rosens, all with a lobbyist background, a job with a political communcations firm, and apparently the ear of the POTUS? Coincidence, I'm sure. Pure coincidence. Next question, please.

2. As well as the usual lib suspects canonizing Ms. Rosen and calling Mrs. Romney the usual barrage of "bitch", "twat", "whore," and "cunt." Because that's the limit of their vocabulary, it seems.

3. So don't say I never said anything good about The Lightbringer. That may be the only time, but I did it.

4. Heh. Most of the time.

Comments

[Beth]

I still think it was a setup all along, so they'd have all these wonderful upper level sound bites of the Pres and his advisors stepping all over themselves to denounce her. I'm just a big poopy cynic.

[Chris]

Thanks for your take on it. I was thinking along the same lines. I don't think she was slamming SAHMs, I think it was totally class warfare, AND, some Mormon bashing thrown in with the "old fashioned" comment she said later. In fact, Mrs. Romney took more exception to that comment.
What irritates me is the sitting on their thrones, telling Mrs. Romney she can't know about issues, when they are no more 99%ers(how I hate that term), than the people they are disparaging. Rosen has more insight into the life of a waitress with 3 kids to feed? Really? I don't have that perspective, but I do have one of a SAHM mom whose family has to survive on Hubster's salary, by choice. And now that one income is starting to feel the pinch from the policies driven by Congress, no matter what the party! That's what I fear from Romney, more of the same. That's why I will fight to replace the senior Senator from my state, Lugar. He just rolls over and gives it away!
Thanks for the response, you nailed it.

[Emily]

I didn't even think it was trying to disparage SAHMs. I assumed it was all about wealth. And sadly, to be a politician with any hope of getting anywhere in this country, you have to have wealth. So no one in elected position in DC can really truly KNOW what people who live paycheck to paycheck have to go through. (I admit I haven't researched the tax returns of everyone in congress...)