We all remember the nasty and filthy attacks hurled at 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (and continue to this day). Here was a feminist’s dream … a woman who had it all. Family. Career(s). Even a somewhat “stay-at-home-Dad/Husband”, rather a partnership where he was in full support of her political career. Yet, the irrational attacks came. She was dumb, ignorant, unqualified, inexperienced, should stay home with her kids … So, we got Obama, and his unelected food czarina wife.
Now the liberal harpies are beginning to take aim at the presumptive GOP presidential candidate’s wife, Ann Romney, and Obama’s DNC Advisor Hilary Rosen leads the way…
REALLY?!? You really believe you can stridently take this road in this day and age? This is what you believe will secure the women’s vote for Obama?
How about Mzzz. Rosen (and those feminists who will undoubtedly run to her defense on various insignificant cable news network shows campaigning for Obama’s re-election) address how much less females in her hero Obama’s White House are paid … 18% less, that is. Talk about a “Hostile Workplace”:
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
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.
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.
“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.
The president and his Democratic allies have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” and have touted themselves as champions of female equality. Obama’s rhetoric, however, has not always been supported by his actions. […]
When I opened my email this morning I found the first section of NRO’s “Morning Jolt” by Jim Geraghty addressing this attack on not only Ann Romney, but on a rather large population of women in this nation that liberal women honestly believe are stupid, dumb, clueless about what is going on in this country right now …
Obama’s Allies Let Out What They Really Think of Ann Romney
On CNN last night, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen felt the best way to help her preferred candidate, Barack Obama, was to go after Ann Romney, Mitt’s wife.
ANDERSON COOPER: To the Romney campaign’s point, they say they’re focusing on the economy, and that’s what women say they overwhelmingly care about right now in poll after poll. And whether it’s a typical pattern or not, women are seeing jobs come back much more slowly than men are. Is there anything really wrong then, on reaching out to women on an issue that they care about, on the economy?
HILARY ROSEN: Well, first, can we just get rid of this word, “war on women”? The Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it — this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they’re actually the ones spreading it. With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney’s right, that ultimately, women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like. But he doesn’t connect on that issue either. What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, “Well, my wife tells me 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 never actually worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the 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 how do — why we worry about their future.
Brittany Cohan: “Democrats are all about choice. Until you are a pro-life woman who stays at home and raises her kids. Then you’re wrong. Or something.”
Erick Erickson: “If raising 5 sons through breast cancer and MS isn’t a real job, I’m not sure what is.”
Our Charles Cooke observes, “An astonishing number of liberals on Twitter have feeds featuring both nonsensical ‘war on women’ claims and mean comments about Ann Romney.” He adds, “Actually, @hilaryr, if the federal government ran its budgets like most mothers do, we wouldn’t have a $900bn structural annual deficit.”
Dana Perino scoffs, “The problem with saying something explosive on a network no one watches is that everyone hears about it and few hear the hollow apology.”
Moe Lane notices, “Hey, do you know what Hilary Rosen considers real work? Pushing copy-protected CDs. That’s right: she was a RIAA lobbyist.”
Ryan Williams, Romney spokesman, notices a report from the Wall Street Journal from February 16: “‘Obama advisers have occasionally told [DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz] to ‘tone it down.’ . . . She agreed with them to enlist . . . Anita Dunn and Hilary Rosen.”
Chelsea Grunwald: “Question for Hillary Rosen, Michelle Obama is technically not employed right now, is her input on female economic issues invalid too?”
Drew M. asks, “Does she have to report her CNN appearance to the FCC as an in-kind contribution to the Romney campaign?”
How bad did it get?
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, 10:42 p.m. eastern time: “I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.”
David Axelrod, 10:48 p.m. eastern time: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”
One of the regrettable trends in modern politics is that just about any aspect of a candidate and his life is deemed fair game and instantly cited, dissected, and oftentimes twisted into evidence of his poor quality as a potential president.
For example, Michelle Obama wants to see Americans enjoy better health and to do so through eating a healthier diet. In the abstract, this is a perfectly innocuous good goal. Mike Huckabee talks about a lot of the same issues. (The problem is, consciously or not, she keeps drifting into nanny-state or government-control-oriented rhetoric in discussing this goal of a healthier America. Rhetoric like, “When our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well. We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”) But of all the reasons to vote against Barack Obama, Michelle Obama’s healthy-eating cause is pretty low on the list.
A lot of partisans completely invert their criteria cycle by cycle depending on the qualities of their party’s candidates. In 1996, a race that matched an injured war veteran against an alleged draft dodger, Democrats believed that military service was irrelevant to evaluating the quality of a presidential candidate. In 2004, Democrats felt that military service was front and center, and a huge reason to support John Kerry over George W. Bush. By 2008, military service was irrelevant again.
A candidate’s personal wealth, lifestyle, and spending habits were irrelevant in 2004 — but became important by 2008, when it was important to contrast Barack Obama’s humble beginnings with John McCain’s seven homes. Of course, Sarah Palin lived perhaps the most middle-class lifestyle of any figure on a presidential ticket in the past 30 years — she didn’t even have a full campaign-appearance-ready wardrobe! — and that was deemed a weakness of some kind. Lack of Washington experience was a plus for Obama — but Sarah Palin was dangerously unprepared, etc.
This echoes a point in the Jonathan Haidt book, that people come to their conclusions instinctively (the candidate of the party I prefer is best) and reason backwards from there.
At the time I decided I was ready to start a family my husband and I had been married nearly eight years, and my career in the media was about to take off because the radio station I was working for was expanding big time, and I was getting tapped for TV work. Heck, one of my radio ads had even won a national award. So when, early in my ninth month, I called a meeting with the station owner/GM, and the program director and told them I was leaving to finish my third trimester with my feet up and away from the gagging cigarette smoke they both about hit the floor. I was promised as much time “off” as I wanted, etc., etc. … But PLEASE come back! After being jolted from bed in the middle (3 a.m.) of the night several times for the last few months to cover for the MIA guy that was supposed to do the 5 a.m. shift I became aware one of my two responsibilities in life would often times suffer so the other would be successful. Considering one was a “paying job” it would begin to take priority. I told my bosses I would NOT be raising my child(ren) half-assed, and if I was to be jolted out of bed in the middle of the night to go to work, it would be for my kid(s). I stayed on for another couple weeks until they found TWO new hires to do the job(s) I had been doing at the station … No matter where I have worked that has always been the case. When I leave more than one person has to cover what I did. Which should indicate exactly how many people would need hired to cover all the jobs a “stay-at-home-Mom” does. Think about it. BTW, I still get the occasionally contact from the station asking if I am ready to re-enter my career and come back to work for them. Nope, I am still raising my Down Syndrome twelve-year-old daughter, while picking up and caring for my G-kids so my oldest daughter her husband can work and grow in their professional careers without worrying about some stranger raising their three children (my concern also) … and because I expect to be taken great care of in my old age by my hard-working professional kids I sacrificed for (HEH!).
Yeah, as a “stay-at-home-Mom (G-ma)” I am extremely concerned with the economy, and our republic. I AM well-informed politically. I am fully aware of how much less I am buying at the store for how much more in just over three years. My husband just thought I was going hog-wild with the grocery budget, while being cheap on some of the items he typically uses (as I have begun bypassing name brands for store brands to make the budget stretch. I am very aware the gasoline budget for our two cars is sucking bucks from our household budget. I am very aware my middle daughter will own close to a quarter of a million dollars in student loans once she graduates from medical school … which would be ominous enough during ‘good economic times’, but the specter of ObamaCare completely ransacking and destroying the best healthcare in the world makes her looming debt even worse. So, as a “stay-at-home-Mom” I am completely aware of what is going on in this country and in the world.
Ann Romney’s Twitter account had several condescending remarks Tweeted to her, but one that really pissed me off was this one:
gemimmsþ@gemimms @AnnDRomney Ann? I’m sure it was. But you have no idea how hard we, who chose to work, fought for our rights. #gopwaronwomen
Note the end hashtag: #gopwaronwomen
You have no idea how pissed I get when I hear leftist women rave over themselves like this. They have NO idea how hard we, who chose to leave the career/workforce to raise kids 24/7, are currently fighting for our rights, bragging or otherwise, against the war on us from self-righteous sanctimonious “feminists” like her that seem to believe she is somehow owed something from us. And when you have a Sarah Palin who does both children and career they resent her too?!!!?
As an ironic side-note to all of this, I stumbled across a recent column in The Daily Beast that actress and activist Ashley Judd penned regarding peers concerned with her “puffy face”. Ashley is a bit miffed at the sexist concern over her physical appearance … but mostly because a lot of it is coming from her fellow females/feminists. To say this small section of the whole droning piece jumped off the computer monitor at me is an understatement (I believe I stirred awake the sleeping household when I scoffed loudly in the middle of the other night while reading it).
That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.
A case in point is that this conversation was initially promulgated largely by women; a sad and disturbing fact. (That they are professional friends of mine, and know my character and values, is an additional betrayal.)
This struck me as quite outrageously hilarious and hypocritical, coming from one of Sarah Palin’s loudest celebrity attackers during the 2008 presidential campaign. Judd, an actress and not somebody that ever worked a day in her life making major decisions regarding a community/state, attacked Palin’s personal pro-life stand and hunting, and the then Alaska Governor’s practice of culling the Alaskan wolf herds for the sake of all Alaska’s wildlife conservation. But because Judd now is faced with the reality of the shallowness of her own industry in which she works she is upset so many people, including fellow women, are obsessing over her physical appearance. She expects them to not only cease such clucking, but to defend her.
Exactly where was Ashely Judd when Gov. Sarah Palin was being bombarded with cheap, disgusting and demeaning attacks?
I find some of the most egregious attacks and war waged on women comes from self-proclaimed liberal “feminists”. And right now these feminists are planning on attacking Ann Romney as not qualified to be First Lady??? (Re-read the Morning Jolt piece above to understand just how insane that is.)
It’s not surrender to stay at home in order to raise children to become good and productive citizens in this society. It is surrender, however, to claim you are an activist for “women’s rights” and then to single them out and attack and demean them for the sake of your candidate’s political career … especially if that candidate is a male that would pay you less than he pays his male employees … some who obviously now have to do damage control for DNC advisor Hilary Rosen’s opened can of worms. Perhaps that is why the Obama White House male employees get paid more than his female employees…
But you just double-down there, Hilary…
By the way, Hilary Rosen has visited Obama’s White House 35 times. You’d think she might be more concerned with the pay disparity of the genders within than she is with Ann Romney’s employment resume, and opinion on the economy.
So, STEP OFF, Hilary Rosen … and “feminists”!
You want a “war on women”? You are about to open a major can of whoop ass…
Did I say “double-down”, Hilary? She triples-down…
“Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women’s rights and advancement as a way to score political points,” she wrote last night on CNN. “When it comes to supporting policies that would actually help women, their silence has been deafening. I don’t need lectures from the RNC on supporting women and fighting to increase opportunities for women; I’ve been doing it my whole career.”
Uh oh!!! Flashback – Hilary Rosen 2008 “Attacks on Michelle Obama Stupid” (I love the internet):
In 2008, Rosen derided Republican attacks against Michelle Obama as an example as “stupid strategy.”
“You know essentially, you’ve taken on sort of the most sympathetic person in the candidate’s realm, the wife, who is taking care of the children, supporting the husband, doing everything she can because she loves him,” Rosen said on Anderson Cooper 360 according to a CNN transcript from May 19, 2008.
“Michelle Obama is a pretty terrific woman I have to say, and I think that attacking her is a dumb strategy on the Republican’s part,” Rosen added.
**Rosen added, however, that as a campaign surrogate, Michelle Obama should be aware that she was “fair game” for Republicans.
“She has to understand as an official surrogate of the campaign, everything she says matters and will be scrutinized,” Rosen asserted.
(** Mine, see below)
Hilary Rosen’s main justification for attacking Ann Romney is that husband Mitt cited her in campaign comments. 1. Who doesn’t cite their spouse when running for office? You would question their relationship/partnership and mutual respect for the other’s ideas and opinions … 2. Not only did Obama often cite his own young daughters in his 2008 run, but will be putting them front and center in his re-election campaign. **So, by Rosen’s reasoning the Obama girls will be fair game.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Michelle Obama and Rosen’s boss Debbie Wasserman-Schultz shove Hilary Rosen under the Obama bus… Rosen was hired by Wasserman-Schultz for this campaign. DWS herself has some `splaining to do about this whole alleged “war on women” by the GOP:
Mitt Romney has a thing or two to add to this attack on his wife.
For what it’s worth, clucking hens … “The View’s” Whoopi Goldberg pretty much says Rosen didn’t use her brain.
The next First Lady of The United States, Ann Romney, responds:
Hilary Rosen’s inevitable apology for her Ann Romney attacks … sounds a bit like her “Spare me the faux anger…” statement.
“Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay at home moms’ to rest once and for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen. In response to Mitt Romney on the campaign trail referring to his wife as a better person to answer questions about women than he is, I was discussing his poor record on the plight of women’s financial struggles…
“As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.”
It was Rosen’s own party (Google it) that declared a “war on women” after her client Sandra Fluke’s statements before Congress. Now the democrats are insisting it is a “faux war” … and THEY never said there was a war on women???
Again, I insist Rosen address the unequal male/female pay scale in Obama’s White House.
Cross-posted @ CW