Who has the best lights in town? Vote now for your favorite in our holiday lights contest.
Procrastination — the art of keeping up with yesterday.
What are you putting off this weekend?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
The Dems have their own “war against women”. Some examples:
1) The marriage penalty: Most married women are second earners and their income is added to their husband’s and often taxed at a high marginal rate. A married woman keeps less of her paycheck than an unwed man who does the same job. The Dems are against any reform of the marriage penalty.
2) Provision in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act: Requires hourly workers who put in more than 40 hours a week to get overtime. Polls found that over 80% of women would rather work more hours and fewer days and receive time off. Flex time is important for many working moms but unions oppose any change in the 40 hour work week rule. Dems blocked GOP efforts to let workers negotiate directly with employers to schedule their hours.
3) Union pension plans: Rewards long service which often put women who tend to move in and out of the work force at a disadvantage. No help here from the Dems who support unions.
So what is Obama’s answer? He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act which supposedly eliminates wage discrimination but is really just a bonanza for his trial lawyer friends.
So what is the Dems answer? A personal attack on Ann Romney for being a stay at home mom and knowing nothing of women’s economic issues, a woman who raised 5 children, survived breast cancer, and struggles with MS.
Mitt and Ann’s first home was a small basement apartment were they had 3 small children and Mitt’s meager pay check. They did not receive help from their well to do parents.
The Dems are falling all over themselves trying to walk back this hateful attack on Ann Romney.
The real women’s economic issues are jobs and a growing economy, areas where Obama’s policies have hurt women.
Just out of curiosity John R., where did you get the talking points? I think it’s considered polite to cite sources.
As a moderate conservative, I find it ridiculous that we are still treating women as second class citizen. My wife earn more money than I do, and I have learned, from the first day we dated till now (7th year in our marriage), that my wife is an excellent financial manager. I have long entrusted her to manage our finance, yet when it comes major purchase, we make the decision together. It often takes a very long time before we arrive at a decision.
It’s time we as a nation give our women their place as an equal.
#2 Scott, you should read the WSJ, there is a lot you might learn there.
Instead of trying to play “gotcha”,a popular game on this blog, why not try to refute my remarks. That is called dialog. I find politness lacking around here.
There was no “hateful attack” on Ann Romney and that is simply the truth. There was an inarticulate point made in a bigger and more important conversation: that Willard Mitt Romney tells us how he relies on his wife for economic advice on “women’s issues” (after all a former Governor couldn’t possibly know anything about that), and the fact that Mrs. Romney has led a “sheltered life” with never a real fear of privation makes her unqualified to speak “for women”.
I am sorry that they got married too soon by the standards bandied here, had children too soon by the standards bandied here and lived in crappy student housing in college, while living off investment income, but if you think that the golden Romney lifestyle connects with the average American family, you are seriously mistaken.
I do not doubt she is a strong courageous woman. She has survived breast cancer and reportedly suffers from multiple sclerosis. President Obama has said that he respects mothers whatever their choices in life. But of course you cannot let this one thread go because it supposedly gives the TP/GOP cover for their true “war on women” not the one you have manufactured.
If you want to talk about vile, disgusting attacks on women, you go back and review some of the GOP attacks on Hillary Clinton. Then we’ll talk.
Romney should have the decency to be honest with the people he represents. Starting with this advice I read somewhere on what he should say: “I was a child of privilege and have my parents’ wealth to thank for my education. That said, I worked very very hard in business, and the vast majority of my fortune I earned myself.” Trying to change the narrative to a couple of struggling kids in over their heads is dishonest to the core.
http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/ The GOP “War on Women” is real.
In #1 John R almost puts a lump in my throat with
“Mitt and Ann’s first home was a small basement apartment were they had 3 small children and Mitt’s meager pay check. They did not receive help from their well to do parents.”
Uh, John R, based on an interview with Jack Thomas of the Boston Globe, October 20, 1994 with Ann Romney in the Boston Globe here are a few pieces from that interview, which clearly gives a different meaning to your paragraph.
“Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time.
“The stock came from Mitt’s father.”
“We had our first child in that tiny apartment.”The next two were not born there John R.
“The funny thing is that I never expected help. My father had become wealthy through hard work, as did Mitt’s father, but I never expected our parents to take care of us. They’d visit, laugh and say, `We can’t believe you guys are living like this.’ They’d take us out to dinner, have a good time, then leave.
“We stayed till Mitt graduated in 1971, and when he was accepted at Harvard Law, we came east. He was also accepted at Harvard Business School as part of a joint program that admits 25 a year, so he was getting degrees from Harvard Law and Business schools at the same time.”
The second boy came along about 18 months after Mitt had begun his studies at Harvard and he and Ann were living in a $42000 home in Belmont.
It’s clearer from Ann in the interview, “Remember, we’d been paying $62 a month rent, but here, rents were $400, and for a dump. This is when we took the now-famous loan that Mitt talks about from his father and bought a $42,000 home in Belmont, and you know? The mortgage payment was less than rent. Mitt saw that the Boston market was behind Chicago, LA and New York. We stayed there seven years and sold it for $90,000, so we not only stayed for free, we made money. As I said, Mitt’s very bright.”
“Another son came along 18 months later, although we waited four years to have the third, because Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted.
“Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy and it was about the time Mitt’s first paycheck came along. So, we were married a long time before we had any income, about five years as struggling students.”
LOL! Can you imagine the Democrat response had a Republican said that? It’s great fun watching fake politicians and corrupt pundits try to explain their way out of this. Hypocrite city.
#5 – “There was no “hateful attack” on Ann Romney and that is simply the truth.”
Sorry, Sandi…it was indeed an attack. Fall in line and gloss it over like all the others who realize what a stupid comment it was, but it was an attack nonetheless. Otherwise, why even bring it up?
John R, another big part of civil discourse is also the rule of writing against plagiarism. You all but used direct quotes from the WSJ opinion piece you co-opted sir, is that perhaps a violation of blog terms?
But, in civil rebuttal:
1) The marriage penalty: There has been a “marriage penalty” FIX in every Congress for a very long time. There is no reason to assume that the fix, like every other weasel move of every other weasel Congress will not continue. Protecting wealth is a pastime. It is only a matter of HOW TO PAY FOR IT and still have a fair tax structure. Not that a fair tax structure, or the deficit, has ever or will ever matter to the TP/GOP. There is no substantiation for the disingenuous point made that “The Dems are against any reform of the marriage penalty“. If so, offer it.
2) Naturally Democrats oppose any effort that further strips unions and their ability to negotiate freely for their members under collective bargaining. No Dems oppose voluntary commitment to “flex time” or any other negotiated agreement between workers and their employers or unions and owners.
3) Why you are arguing for equal pension benefits for those who “tend to move in and out of the work force” at the same time you bemoan “fair pay” and the Lily Ledbetter Act is a true and unsolved mystery. I had assumed your position was no special treatment for workers, most especially from the government. Why the change of heart?
I sincerely hope I met your standards for civility.
Michael, a “hateful attack” would be the usual name calling and below the belt insults we all know well. I can offer some examples if you truly do not remember any of them.
Rosen was making a point, and made a valid observation (if done without the civility of a compliment), that has been pounced on from this blog to the ends of the earth. But no, it was not a “hateful attack”.
Hateful attack on Mrs Romney?
Please give me a friggin break! Does anyone happen to remember how viciously Hillary Clinton was smeared because she touted the fact that she wasn’t a stay at home mom?
#10 – Not necessary, Sandi. I remember your insults and name calling very well.
And I yours Michael. It is always a two way street and it would behoove you to remember that.
Today we note one of the greatest global cooling disasters of all time.
Over 1500 people loss their lives when the Titanic sank after ramming an iceberg.
Surely even you would agree that Ann Romney is not your typical stay at home mom. Her husband claims that she knows the plight of the stay at home mom and understands the difficulty that is experienced in today’s economic times.
She, like her husband…and like the spouses of candidates before them have put themselves out in the public eye to be scrutinized and criticized for positions and comments.
Where was your concern for Hillary or Michelle when they were being so resoundingly criticized?
I think you just tripped over your own double standard.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:06:31 +0000