• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ann Romney Never Worked a Day In Her Life.

Sounds like you're describing Jackie Kennedy. Amazing how the rich all seem to live the same lifestyles.

Exactly ... I would write the same about Jackie Kennedy although she was before my time.

Another point and I may be wrong ... I do not recall reading JFK basing his economic policy on what Jackie thought ... in fact Jackie was so old fashioned she did not advive him on such matters.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Dion
I have not read this thread and briefly read this "story".

Several comments ...

First although I would never vote for Romney ... I like Ann Romney's sense of humor and demeanor and have nothing personal against her. She is beautiful and has a kind energy about her.

On the strategist ... well my thoughts are this ... she was right and wrong. It was not about "stay at home moms" or that being a stay at home mom is not grueling work.

I think strategist was trying to say ... that each and every day Ann had a complete and luxurious choice to do whatever she pleased. I am sure if Ann woke up with the flu she could have a driver take her kids to preschool and the chef prepare the meals until she recovered.

Whenever Ann needed to refresh she could fly on a private jet to a spa with her friends for some R&R or hire a tutor if her child was struggling with a project. Many professional mothers go to work sick and struggle to buy the science project supplies and burn the mid night oil to help a kid with his project while trying to prepare an evening meal.

I am sure Ann was very hands on and spent much more time with her children than most uber wealthy women and is a loving mother. However the majority of women cannot hope of paying college tuition , get a full nights sleep (even when they are sick) and struggle to make ends meet even when working 40+ hours weeks.

Even with 5 children each and everyday Ann had choices not only to be "stay at home" but how much she wanted to do ... oh my gosh if once per month i could have gotten a full nights sleep and had a chef prepare dinner and simply snuggled in to read stories with my kids I would have felt spolied.

That was the point the strategist was making.

Obama is simply trying to make a point there is no war against choice for mothers or that stay at home mothers do not work and trying to diffuse an issue that does not even exist nor does he want to be negative or disrespectful to Ann Romney. I imagine he feels the same I do about her ... respectful and the same obvious thoughts I am writing.

Of course on days Ann felt like preparing her own food from an unlimited budget in multi million dollar kitchens she probably did ... other days she might have enjoyed discretionary time to herself while the child care managed those details and came home to read a story and dote on her sons.

Ann seems like a cool person who would not flaunt her wealth or ignore her children ... yet she had all the surrounding hundreds of millions to have whatever support she needed to have those special moments completely stress free of the challenges 99.9% of us mothers face.

That is cool for Ann and lucky her ... yet I do not feel she is qualified to know the 24/7 challenges of either typical middle class income stay at home moms or mothers who are breadwinners and also devoted to family. I do believe she seems compassionate and is probably thinking to herself " I have no clue how those women do it!"

Ann seems to be a lovely lady ... yet she has no reality of even the challenges my upper middle class neighbor faces who is morman, husband is a surgeon and has 5 boys let alone the 99.9 % of mothers who are stay at home or work outside the home.

That said ... Ann seems absolutely lovely and very unassuming and kind for a woman of her vast fortune.




You express some quite condescending ideas in lovely, gracious words. Please, a woman with a "vast fortune" typically behaves a certain way, but Ann Romney has somehow risen about this?

And can someone understand another's reality without experiencing it? Yes, and emphathize too.

Does a "vast fortune" distance a woman from external reality? Not necessarily, not if she's in the world.

Are there some realities that all women share irrespective of their "stations" in life? Yes. We all know those who are less and more fortunate than we are. Some have money concerns, some have kid or parent concerns, and some have shared health concerns.

Those of us who are mothers have much common ground irrespective of our bank accounts. All the money in the world can't protect you from cancer or multiple sclerosis either. If the Romneys were facing what the Santorums now are--or any other parent whose child has a terminal disease--their reality wouldn't be any different at all.

I do not feel condescending towards Ann whatsoever and quoted my own post.

Yes ... a woman with breast cancer can relate to Ann on some level yet if that said women is like most and loses health ins when she runs out of sick time and loses her job ... files bankruptcy to pay medical bills when she can no longer maintain her employment, loses her house and her kids are shuffled about ... they are on different realms. When that same women is puking in the toilet while her 4 and 6 year old watch and eat chips because there is no back up system such as the services hundreds of millions of discretionary income provide .... that is where the two women part ways.

Now would I want Ann to have to experience that common scenario that I see every single day in my work regarding families in health crisis ... heck no!

Do I think she would feel empathy ... heck yes!

Do I think she can persuade ( or would even attempt to persuade) the GOP to consider options that would allow a small business owner to have free market options to be able to provide health insurance for their 12 employees ... heck no!

She is not an economic advisor ... yes she would make a lovely first Lady.

Really the strategist had a point and it was simply the point I made in my post quoted and not anything else and the GOP seized on the moment to make an issue where none really exists.

Yes they can bond on some level ... yet again Ann is probably thinking " I feel empathetic yet have no clue how she does it! " when viewing the 99.9 % of women in America.
 
Last edited:
Ding ding ding. I'm really liking on Dion right now. :)
 
Exactly ... I would write the same about Jackie Kennedy although she was before my time.

Another point and I may be wrong ... I do not recall reading JFK basing his economic policy on what Jackie thought ... in fact Jackie was so old fashioned she did not advive him on such matters.


Lot of articles and tapes by and about her are available. She wasn't just a "breathy" fashion plate. Highly intelligent, opinionated, judgemental, and politically astute woman.
 
You express some quite condescending ideas in lovely, gracious words. Please, a woman with a "vast fortune" typically behaves a certain way, but Ann Romney has somehow risen about this?

And can someone understand another's reality without experiencing it? Yes, and emphathize too.

Does a "vast fortune" distance a woman from external reality? Not necessarily, not if she's in the world.

Are there some realities that all women share irrespective of their "stations" in life? Yes. We all know those who are less and more fortunate than we are. Some have money concerns, some have kid or parent concerns, and some have shared health concerns.

Those of us who are mothers have much common ground irrespective of our bank accounts. All the money in the world can't protect you from cancer or multiple sclerosis either. If the Romneys were facing what the Santorums now are--or any other parent whose child has a terminal disease--their reality wouldn't be any different at all.

Lot of articles and tapes by and about her are available. She wasn't just a "breathy" fashion plate. Highly intelligent, opinionated, judgemental, and politically astute woman.

Yes, JO was intelligent and judgmental; yet I listened to those tapes and JO opinions were mostly all social opinions and she made it clear her role was wife. They are worth listening to for anyone as she describes her pov of many people in history entirely from a personal perspective.

In fact ... they revealed her to be somewhat politically naive.
 
Ding ding ding. I'm really liking on Dion right now. :)

Thanks Enola ...! it is the real and raw reality that I observe each day professionally.
 
Ms. Rosen has apologized to Ms. Romney and said on CNN this is going to be an ugly campaign season. And evidently she decided to fire the first salvo.

But she did step up to the plate and apologize. The article talked about Ms. Rosen having twins, with her ex-partner Elizabeth Birch. So guess she has the day-to-day care for their children on her shoulders.

Maybe she took a whack at Ann Romney because of her situation. I can understand a single mom carrying the whole load and getting angry at someone who doesn't have her problems.


I still don't know if I buy the "lone gunman" scenerio being put out by the Demos. I think Ms. Rosen might be the scape goat.
 
Last edited:
I have not read this thread and briefly read this "story".

Several comments ...

First although I would never vote for Romney ... I like Ann Romney's sense of humor and demeanor and have nothing personal against her. She is beautiful and has a kind energy about her.

On the strategist ... well my thoughts are this ... she was right and wrong. It was not about "stay at home moms" or that being a stay at home mom is not grueling work.

I think strategist was trying to say ... that each and every day Ann had a complete and luxurious choice to do whatever she pleased. I am sure if Ann woke up with the flu she could have a driver take her kids to preschool and the chef prepare the meals until she recovered.

Whenever Ann needed to refresh she could fly on a private jet to a spa with her friends for some R&R or hire a tutor if her child was struggling with a project. Many professional mothers go to work sick and struggle to buy the science project supplies and burn the mid night oil to help a kid with his project while trying to prepare an evening meal.

I am sure Ann was very hands on and spent much more time with her children than most uber wealthy women and is a loving mother. However the majority of women cannot hope of paying college tuition , get a full nights sleep (even when they are sick) and struggle to make ends meet even when working 40+ hours weeks.

Even with 5 children each and everyday Ann had choices not only to be "stay at home" but how much she wanted to do ... oh my gosh if once per month i could have gotten a full nights sleep and had a chef prepare dinner and simply snuggled in to read stories with my kids I would have felt spolied.

That was the point the strategist was making.

Obama is simply trying to make a point there is no war against choice for mothers or that stay at home mothers do not work and trying to diffuse an issue that does not even exist nor does he want to be negative or disrespectful to Ann Romney. I imagine he feels the same I do about her ... respectful and the same obvious thoughts I am writing.

Of course on days Ann felt like preparing her own food from an unlimited budget in multi million dollar kitchens she probably did ... other days she might have enjoyed discretionary time to herself while the child care managed those details and came home to read a story and dote on her sons.

Ann seems like a cool person who would not flaunt her wealth or ignore her children ... yet she had all the surrounding hundreds of millions to have whatever support she needed to have those special moments completely stress free of the challenges 99.9% of us mothers face.

That is cool for Ann and lucky her ... yet I do not feel she is qualified to know the 24/7 challenges of either typical middle class income stay at home moms or mothers who are breadwinners and also devoted to family. I do believe she seems compassionate and is probably thinking to herself " I have no clue how those women do it!"

Ann seems to be a lovely lady ... yet she has no reality of even the challenges my upper middle class neighbor faces who is morman, husband is a surgeon and has 5 boys let alone the 99.9 % of mothers who are stay at home or work outside the home.

That said ... Ann seems absolutely lovely and very unassuming and kind for a woman of her vast fortune.



Well if the DNC strategist thought "that each and every day Ann had a complete and luxurious choice to do whatever she pleased" and so forth, she should have said that. Why not be absolutely honest?


President Obama is trying to distance himself from this whole mess. Part of his campaign is the "war on women". And evidently he's working hard to convince folks it does exist.

He is now working hard trying convince folks that Ms.Rosen's war on Ann Romeny "diffuse an issue that does not even exist".


I'm sure if Romney is elected, he'll choose people with experience to advise him on all issues. I think voters will figure this all out for themselves, don't you?
 
Ms. Rosen has apologized to Ms. Romney and said on CNN this is going to be an ugly campaign season. And evidently she decided to fire the first salvo.

But she did step up to the plate and apologize. The article talked about Ms. Rosen having twins, with her ex-partner Elizabeth Birch. So guess she has the day-to-day care for their children on her shoulders.

Maybe she took a whack at Ann Romney because of her situation. I can understand a single mom carrying the whole load and getting angry at someone who doesn't have her problems.


I still don't know if I buy the "lone gunman" scenerio being put out by the Demos. I think Ms. Rosen might be the scape goat.

Rosen may have some problems that she thinks Ann Romney cannot identify with, but Rosen might be more like Ann than she is like the average mom. She has a job bringing in good money, and surely someone helping her with the twins, day care perhaps? Who cares for the twins while she works?

Long story short, if we are looking for "fair", it doesn't exist. We get dealt our hand in life and we play it, no sense being envious of those who get a better hand. And trying to get the less fortunates to hate the more fortunate isn't going to help anybody.
 
Rosen may have some problems that she thinks Ann Romney cannot identify with, but Rosen might be more like Ann than she is like the average mom. She has a job bringing in good money, and surely someone helping her with the twins, day care perhaps? Who cares for the twins while she works?

Long story short, if we are looking for "fair", it doesn't exist. We get dealt our hand in life and we play it, no sense being envious of those who get a better hand. And trying to get the less fortunates to hate the more fortunate isn't going to help anybody.

I couldn't agree more with what you said here Bill. However, as we see the campaign strategy of team Obama, as well as their surrogates in the press like Rosen, division among socio-economic, gender, or one could say anything that will distract from the policy failure that Obama has been. The question is, how many are going to look at it from an educated, naked eye like you did here, or just carry forth the talking points that continue to distract and divide.


j-mac
 
I agree with the statement, we shouldn't criticize another woman's choices. But keep in mind, Mitt brought her into the conversation multiple times when he said that he turns to his wife Ann for advice on economics and what the average family voter is concerned about. She has no clue what weighs heavy on the "average" working mom or regular American family.

She is the 1%. They worry about contractors getting their new house finished in time. (the one with the car elevator in the garage) Caterers putting on a great party for them. They don't worry about losing their job and not being able to pay the bills. She could feed a country with one check and not change her life whatsoever.

Mitt brought her into the conversation.

Obama brought his wife into conversations too, but I see that you and other Democrats are quick to defend her when Rush jumps on her. It works both ways.

However, let's bring up wives in general. What laws do they plan to sign once their husbands are in office? Which Supreme Court Justices do they plan to nominate? Who are they going to appoint as ambassadors? Which wars are they going to oversee? None, of course. They are not running for president. Their husbands are. I wouldn't care if Ann Romney likes to have sex with midgets. Criticizing her for ANYTHING has nothing at all to do with her husband. The same goes for Michelle Obama. Jumping on the wives (either Ann or Michelle) to attempt to score political points is just stupid. Want to criticize Romney for not getting it? Sure, he is fair game. HE is the one who is going to be making decisions, if he is elected (fat chance of that). So, with this in mind, I would say that those who are jumping on Ann have no right to criticize Rush when he jumps on Michelle. Why? Because, in jumping on Ann, they have shown themselves to be no different than Rush.
 
I couldn't agree more with what you said here Bill. However, as we see the campaign strategy of team Obama, as well as their surrogates in the press like Rosen, division among socio-economic, gender, or one could say anything that will distract from the policy failure that Obama has been. The question is, how many are going to look at it from an educated, naked eye like you did here, or just carry forth the talking points that continue to distract and divide.


j-mac

more importantly, how do we get the politicians, and the voters, to focus on the important issues that affect the entire country, like the economy, instead of lesser issues that are actually more distractions than issues?
Our nations strength is highly dependent on a healthy economy, much more so than correcting a bunch of perceived inequalities or injustices.
We are becoming a fragmented society, and we have forgotten that "we the people" means all of us, not just those we might agree with, or identify with.
Lesser issues should go on the back burner until we get the economy healthy again. Personally, I don't care about the so-called morality issues, those are even more back burner than the rest. If God wants to send us to hell for those things, so be it. That is HIS jurisdiction, and government should stay out of it.
 
Last edited:
Obama brought his wife into conversations too, but I see that you and other Democrats are quick to defend her when Rush jumps on her. It works both ways.

However, let's bring up wives in general. What laws do they plan to sign once their husbands are in office? Which Supreme Court Justices do they plan to nominate? Who are they going to appoint as ambassadors? Which wars are they going to oversee? None, of course. They are not running for president. Their husbands are. I wouldn't care if Ann Romney likes to have sex with midgets. Criticizing her for ANYTHING has nothing at all to do with her husband. The same goes for Michelle Obama. Jumping on the wives (either Ann or Michelle) to attempt to score political points is just stupid. Want to criticize Romney for not getting it? Sure, he is fair game. HE is the one who is going to be making decisions, if he is elected (fat chance of that). So, with this in mind, I would say that those who are jumping on Ann have no right to criticize Rush when he jumps on Michelle. Why? Because, in jumping on Ann, they have shown themselves to be no different than Rush.

While I don't think that Hilary Rosen intended to blurt what she did, she was already scheduled, wasn't she, for "Meet the Press" this Sunday? Not sure. Am sure, because she has been such a frequent visitor to the White House, that Rosen didn't just happen to have been booked on Anderson Cooper's show.

My guess is that the intent was to gin up the so-called "war on women." If so, it backfired, and I do mean explosively.
 
While I don't think that Hilary Rosen intended to blurt what she did, she was already scheduled, wasn't she, for "Meet the Press" this Sunday? Not sure. Am sure, because she has been such a frequent visitor to the White House, that Rosen didn't just happen to have been booked on Anderson Cooper's show.

My guess is that the intent was to gin up the so-called "war on women." If so, it backfired, and I do mean explosively.

And they threw her into the thrash bin.
 
Publicly anyway. I don't think there was much choice.
 
more importantly, how do we get the politicians, and the voters, to focus on the important issues that affect the entire country, like the economy, instead of lesser issues that are actually more distractions than issues?
Our nations strength is highly dependent on a healthy economy, much more so than correcting a bunch of perceived inequalities or injustices.
We are becoming a fragmented society, and we have forgotten that "we the people" means all of us, not just those we might agree with, or identify with.
Lesser issues should go on the back burner until we get the economy healthy again. Personally, I don't care about the so-called morality issues, those are even more back burner than the rest. If God wants to send us to hell for those things, so be it. That is HIS jurisdiction, and government should stay out of it.


Well said.


j-mac
 
Rosen may have some problems that she thinks Ann Romney cannot identify with, but Rosen might be more like Ann than she is like the average mom. She has a job bringing in good money, and surely someone helping her with the twins, day care perhaps? Who cares for the twins while she works?

Long story short, if we are looking for "fair", it doesn't exist. We get dealt our hand in life and we play it, no sense being envious of those who get a better hand. And trying to get the less fortunates to hate the more fortunate isn't going to help anybody.


I said she could possibly be bitter because her circumstances are not the same as Ms. Romney's.


I still am not convinced that this was not a "put up" job by the DNC. Ms. Rosen had to have been privey to strategy meetings on how to solidify the "War on Women" bull crap the Obama team is pushing. Maybe they sent her out to be the "hit big mouth" and she just took it to far.
 
While I don't think that Hilary Rosen intended to blurt what she did, she was already scheduled, wasn't she, for "Meet the Press" this Sunday? Not sure. Am sure, because she has been such a frequent visitor to the White House, that Rosen didn't just happen to have been booked on Anderson Cooper's show.

My guess is that the intent was to gin up the so-called "war on women." If so, it backfired, and I do mean explosively.
I don't think that was the intent, but even if it were, how did it "backfire"? The only people who are outraged or significantly upset about this are the people who aren't being targeted by the "war on women" rhetoric. Pissing off your non-target audience is hardly a backfire.

I also don't know how commenting on someone's economic status and "job" would even fit into the "war on women" arguments.
 
I wanna see if this non-troversy continues this week, now that Romney has essentially (and predictably) been shown to have taken a position on both proverbial sides of the issue. I doubt it. Somehow, I just don't think Romney's "dignity of work" statement, made back in January during a campaign speech, will inspire anywhere near the kind of attention from the media requiring apologies and denouncements and such.
 
Last edited:
I wanna see if this non-troversy continues this week, now that Romney has essentially (and predictably) been shown to have taken a position on both proverbial sides of the issue. I doubt it. Somehow, I just don't think Romney's "dignity of work" statement, made back in January during a campaign speech, will inspire anywhere near the kind of attention from the media requiring apologies and denouncements and such.

English translation please.
 
I wanna see if this non-troversy continues this week, now that Romney has essentially (and predictably) been shown to have taken a position on both proverbial sides of the issue. I doubt it. Somehow, I just don't think Romney's "dignity of work" statement, made back in January during a campaign speech, will inspire anywhere near the kind of attention from the media requiring apologies and denouncements and such.

the intent was to provide daycare so single moms can go to work, or would you use your taxes to pay a living wage to every mom who stays home with her kids? think about it....
 
I don't think that was the intent, but even if it were, how did it "backfire"? The only people who are outraged or significantly upset about this are the people who aren't being targeted by the "war on women" rhetoric. Pissing off your non-target audience is hardly a backfire.

I also don't know how commenting on someone's economic status and "job" would even fit into the "war on women" arguments.



You do realize there is the "independent" vote, yes? Who do you exactly think the "War on Women" and Ms. Rosen's "Ann Romney never . . . " comments are geared to reach? Those same independent men and women?

Now the question is . . . . . did it backfire?
 
You do realize there is the "independent" vote, yes? Who do you exactly think the "War on Women" and Ms. Rosen's "Ann Romney never . . . " comments are geared to reach? Those same independent men and women?

Now the question is . . . . . did it backfire?

Problem there is that most independents and moderates aren't swayed by emotional bs lest they be on one side or the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom