Ann Romney: Housewife extraordinaire....

[Ansgar Seraph]

What Rosen was saying is that Ann Romney has no clue if she thinks that women aren't concerned about the war that is taking place in republican politics on women. That is what M. Romney implied of her, that in her view women weren't concerned about the republican agenda against them: Abortion, contraception, transvaginal ultrasounds, defunding womens health, anti equal pay for equal work, a.k.a. the Lilly ledbettor act, defunding public education, capping college tuition interest etc. etc. If those are her views, that women don't care about these things and her husband uses her in this way then she becomes open game for criticism and it was perfectly legitimate for Rosen or anyone else to point out the fact that she is clueless. She wasn't attacked for being a stay home mom, her views were attacked because her views on what the average women in this country think and care about are clueless. If Ann Romney had said these things herself would Rosen be wrong for pointing out her cluelessness. Of course not, and so neither was she wrong just because it was her husband who conveyed those thoughts for her.

Romney's argument has been that women are most concerned about economic issues. Rosen's comment was already bordering on an oversimplification (only bordering, though, since Romney has been very, very simplistic in his dealings regarding these issues). To imply that Ann Romney, or even Mitt, think that women aren't concerned at all about these issues is definitely over-simplistic. What Romney is doing is attempting to frame the debate as a matter of priorities: what are you most concerned about? A run-away train wreck of an economy (from Romney's daft standpoint) or trumped-up social issues (again, from Romney's daft standpoint).

What's interesting to me is why we're all talking about this and not this and this.

—Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Fine, you can agree with Ann Romney on any and all of these things, the point is that the majority of women think that the two of you are clueless which has been born out in the polls and if you are going to take a stand on these issues against the majority then don't cry foul when someone calls you out on it.

In other words Jimmy, anybody who disagrees with you is clueless. I love how that works! But women's health is a little bit more involved then simply birth control and abortions. You do know that, right?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Transvaginal utrasounds - Never been pregnant, have you? Women have quite a few more evasive medical procedures then men do simple due to our bodies and there being more to our reproductive systems then to yours.

Defunding Women's' Health - I wasn't aware that pulling the plug on abortion clinics was equal to defunding women's health. I would rather see that money spent on actual women's health. You know, like breast exams to find and detect early cancer or things of that nature.

Equal pay for equal work - I get paid the same amount as every man I work with in my position, who has been at the job as long as I have and has the same rank I got. This may have been true about 50 years ago, but it's quite a bit less common today.

I will dispute these contentions, LPoT (omitting the first two for brevity and convenience).

Transvaginal ultrasounds are controversial not because it's one extra procedure to endure but rather because it is a forced, unnecessary medical procedure that has the likely potential of causing material harm to women. Conservatives (and liberals! and everyone else!) ought not to champion forced, unnecessary procedures because the end justifies the means.

Defunding Planned Parenthood (as Romney has promised to do) wouldn't directly affect abortion clinics, as those operate with private funds. Rather, it would directly and severely impact women's health — things like breast exams:

Planned Parenthood Press Release - Komen Foundation. Accessed 2012-04-14

Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers with Komen program funding have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams out of the more than four million clinical breast exams performed nationwide at Planned Parenthood health centers, as well as more than 6,400 mammogram referrals out of 70,000 mammogram referrals.

© source where applicable

While you may get paid equally, such is not the case for all women. A recent study determined that women are statistically lower-paid than men, with the average women needing to earn a Ph.D. in order to compete with a male college graduate's salary. Even when one adjusts for women who choose to delay or stop their careers for family reasons, a statistically significant discrepancy remains. Since the discrepancy involves national statistics, non-equal pay is not nearly as uncommon as it ought to be . . . and won't get much better if political folk follow Wisconsin's roadmap.

—Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

I will dispute these contentions, LPoT (omitting the first two for brevity and convenience).

Transvaginal ultrasounds are controversial not because it's one extra procedure to endure but rather because it is a forced, unnecessary medical procedure that has the likely potential of causing material harm to women. Conservatives (and liberals! and everyone else!) ought not to champion forced, unnecessary procedures because the end justifies the means.

I'm not a fan of forcing it either and I think it's equally wrong as forcing groups that do not want to provide birth control to do so, but I don't think it's some of evil conspiracy by evil Republicans to do bad things to half the population of the planet. Plus, you should see all the medical things they do to pregnant women. It's no fun...

Defunding Planned Parenthood (as Romney has promised to do) wouldn't directly affect abortion clinics, as those operate with private funds. Rather, it would directly and severely impact women's health — things like breast exams:

Planned Parenthood Press Release - Komen Foundation. Accessed 2012-04-14

Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers with Komen program funding have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams out of the more than four million clinical breast exams performed nationwide at Planned Parenthood health centers, as well as more than 6,400 mammogram referrals out of 70,000 mammogram referrals.

© source where applicable

And what else is Planned Parenthood doing while they do this stuff?

While you may get paid equally, such is not the case for all women. A recent study determined that women are statistically lower-paid than men, with the average women needing to earn a Ph.D. in order to compete with a male college graduate's salary. Even when one adjusts for women who choose to delay or stop their careers for family reasons, a statistically significant discrepancy remains. Since the discrepancy involves national statistics, non-equal pay is not nearly as uncommon as it ought to be . . . and won't get much better if political folk follow Wisconsin's roadmap.

—Sam

You know what they say about studies... but I would like to know specifics....

1. What are these women doing so different?
2. Are these employers following already existing federal laws that specifically state they can not pay somebody lower, for the same job and work, due to their sex? I know what equal opportunity laws state and if that is really happening, sounds like our government is failing us at not doing it's job and we need to throw them out and get ones that do their jobs. Perhaps our federal and state governments needs to actually start enforcing already existing laws instead of creating new ones and using it as a chip on their political campaigns?
3. Within the federal government itself, they assign pay based upon your pay grade and time in. So that means a man with 8 years in as an E-5 gets the same pay as a women with 8 years in as an E-5 does. I kind of like that system because it makes it far harder for that problem to happen. In the AF, you earn your rank based upon criteria that have zero to do race, religion, sex, etc. Perhaps some employers might want to look at that.
4. What I have noticed among my girl friends (most of which are military spouses), is that they do work mostly on a part time bases. They mostly work because they want something to do and they want a little extra money to go with it. So do they make less then men do? In that sense, they do, but it's because they are dong an entry level job and simply doing it for something to do or for a bit of extra money.
5. One of the things it really annoys me that I have seen happen before is how some women try to throw the 'I'm a girl card' so they don't have to do things the guys have to do. I personally avoid this because I don't think it's right for the guys to be outside freezing while I'm inside, where it is warm. Many times, I find this earns these women quite a bit of animosity from their male co workers. It actually took me a good 4-5 months to earn the respect of the guys I work with because I didn't try to throw that card. Granted, I don't think pregnant women or sick men/women should be out where it is cold, but few of the women I've seen do this were pregnant or sick pull this card. I find that behavior a tad bit embarrassing myself and I'm not the one doing it.

I can't speak for others, but if our government is not doing its job, why keep voting for them? Why don't we fire them all and get ones that do enforce the laws already in place?

[Ansgar Seraph]

I'm not a fan of forcing it either and I think it's equally wrong as forcing groups that do not want to provide birth control to do so, but I don't think it's some of evil conspiracy by evil Republicans to do bad things to half the population of the planet. Plus, you should see all the medical things they do to pregnant women. It's no fun...

Oh, I believe it. Dad's a NICU doc so I'm a little better-versed on prenatal care than most single men — though not as well-versed as most women, for sure. The difference, as you note, is the matter of being forced to undergo an unnecessary procedure. I don't think that the goal of the TX policy is to "do bad things to half the population" but, regardless of intent, the policy does create a forced, unnecessary procedure that will cause material harm to a significant number of women. And the benefit of doing so is tiny to nil, unlike the policy mandating insurance companies to provide affordable or even free contraception. The latter may violate a religious liberty (I don't think that it does, given the scope and function of the policy) but it protects, with well-determined statistical evidence, individual liberties that are threatened by lack of affordable access to contraceptives.

So I don't think that we can equate the two; but, even if we could, it wouldn't be good policy, anyhow.

And what else is Planned Parenthood doing while they do this stuff?

Well, no matter what Senator Kyl says, 90%+ of Planned Parenthood's funding goes to providing preventative care, which would include everything from breast exams to contraceptives to STD testing. Only 3% of Planned Parenthood funding (again, all private funds) was used for abortion services.

Defunding Planned Parenthood would have immediate and severe negative effects on women's health. What the GOP has never seriously considered is creating a national women's health service that parallels what Planned Parenthood does without providing abortion services, eventually making defunding PP a feasible option.

You know what they say about studies... but I would like to know specifics....

1. What are these women doing so different?
2. Are these employers following already existing federal laws that specifically state they can not pay somebody lower, for the same job and work, due to their sex? I know what equal opportunity laws state and if that is really happening, sounds like our government is failing us at not doing it's job and we need to throw them out and get ones that do their jobs. Perhaps our federal and state governments needs to actually start enforcing already existing laws instead of creating new ones and using it as a chip on their political campaigns?
3. Within the federal government itself, they assign pay based upon your pay grade and time in. So that means a man with 8 years in as an E-5 gets the same pay as a women with 8 years in as an E-5 does. I kind of like that system because it makes it far harder for that problem to happen. In the AF, you earn your rank based upon criteria that have zero to do race, religion, sex, etc. Perhaps some employers might want to look at that.
4. What I have noticed among my girl friends (most of which are military spouses), is that they do work mostly on a part time bases. They mostly work because they want something to do and they want a little extra money to go with it. So do they make less then men do? In that sense, they do, but it's because they are dong an entry level job and simply doing it for something to do or for a bit of extra money.

I can't speak for others, but if our government it's doing its job, why keep voting for them? Why don't we fire them all and get ones that do enforce the laws already in place?

Same thing they say about democracy . . . "the worst system imaginable, except for every other one tried."

I'll have to go back and look for the specific study that I'm thinking of but here's the Joint Economic Committee's "Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy." The parts concerning wage inequality start on pg. 65. If you're pressed for time, here's the Wikipedia (entry) and here's a graph compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau for full-time workers in 2009 (source):

6a00d83451c45669e2014e8bfb387e970d-800wi.png

One of the big issues that GOP politicians usually address is the government retaining poor workers and increasing their salaries based on "time in." While I agree that many discriminations would be eliminated using such a method, you're not likely going to get many hardcore "free market" thinkers to go along with such a process!

If only we could fire all the politicians and start with clean alternatives . . . <dreamland>

—Sam

[rogue06]

I put Limbaugh up first as the gauge by which to judge. O'Reilly, Beck and Styen, in the list above, mirrored Limbaugh's argument, if not his language. That's important if we're comparing because there weren't that many people who mirrored Rosen's language but, as you cataloged, there were those who mirrored her argument.

Debating over whether or not tax payers should pay for contraceptives is a fair topic and that's all that O'Reilly at least seemed to do. And I don't see merely criticizing Fluke as being wrong in that she put herself into the middle of the debate by testifying before Congress. Limbaugh's offense was the crude, and totally uncalled for language (Beck as well) he used not concluding that we shouldn't be made to pay for "free contraceptives."

Rosen's attack was different in one crucial way. It was also a direct attack on all women who don't work outside the house whether or not it was intended to be. Stay-at-home moms don't work a day in their lives. They're unqualified to comment on "what women really care about."

And, given the record I've provided in earlier posts, apparently not accurate about Ann Romney herself.

The problem there is that Obama's comments about Michelle "not having the luxury" of not working were made in a speech at the “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” on April 6. Rosen's comments were made the night of April 11. Much more likely, then, that Rosen picked up a bit from Obama's speech that she wanted to work into an attack on Romney.

—Sam

If that's the case that definitely change things because when I looked both were listed as having taken place last Wednesday/Thursday. I guess I should have checked to make sure that wasn't just when the stories were written.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Debating over whether or not tax payers should pay for contraceptives is a fair topic and that's all that O'Reilly at least seemed to do. And I don't see merely criticizing Fluke as being wrong in that she put herself into the middle of the debate by testifying before Congress. Limbaugh's offense was the crude, and totally uncalled for language (Beck as well) he used not concluding that we shouldn't be made to pay for "free contraceptives."

By the same token, debating whether or not stay-at-home mothers are in a position to determine the pressing political issues for most women is a fair topic. O'Reilly did not merely criticize Fluke for her position, he definitely went out-of-bounds by characterizing her testimony as amounting to "pay for us to have sex!" O'Reilly bought into Limbaugh's logic, even if he didn't use his words. He sought to de-legitimize Fluke's testimony by painting her as an sexually active yet irresponsible woman.

I think you have to call the fouls on both sides here — it's no good saying that O'Reilly had a point while calling out Rosen's supporters as a "cheerleading crowd" when they are, at worst, doing the same thing that O'Reilly did.

Rosen's attack was different in one crucial way. It was also a direct attack on all women who don't work outside the house whether or not it was intended to be. Stay-at-home moms don't work a day in their lives. They're unqualified to comment on "what women really care about."

And, given the record I've provided in earlier posts, apparently not accurate about Ann Romney herself.

And, regardless of whether it was intended to be, Limbaugh's attack, as well as O'Reilly's indignation, was a direct attack on women who are sexually and financially responsible but cannot afford or are significantly harmed by the high cost of effective health care. There's no doubt, from my viewpoint, that many GOP commentators sought to create the perception that there is no problem with contraception's affordability and the people calling for a change were irresponsible semi-adults, wanting government handouts.

It is extremely easy to generalize both situations . . . and this is where hostile media bias tends to bite us all in the rump.

If that's the case that definitely change things because when I looked both were listed as having taken place last Wednesday/Thursday. I guess I should have checked to make sure that wasn't just when the stories were written.

No foul; it took me a bit to hunt down specific dates.

[rogue06]

And, regardless of whether it was intended to be, Limbaugh's attack, as well as O'Reilly's indignation, was a direct attack on women who are sexually and financially responsible but cannot afford or are significantly harmed by the high cost of effective health care.

Please don't shift the topic from contraceptives to general health care even though that's what you have to try to do if you want to make these equivalent. Contraceptives are available cheaply. I've heard the figure $9/mth bandied about but heard it was both a high and low estimate though everyone agrees they're essentially free at clinics.

There's no doubt, from my viewpoint, that many GOP commentators sought to create the perception that there is no problem with contraception's affordability and the people calling for a change were irresponsible semi-adults, wanting government handouts.

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh, I believe it. Dad's a NICU doc so I'm a little better-versed on prenatal care than most single men — though not as well-versed as most women, for sure. The difference, as you note, is the matter of being forced to undergo an unnecessary procedure. I don't think that the goal of the TX policy is to "do bad things to half the population" but, regardless of intent, the policy does create a forced, unnecessary procedure that will cause material harm to a significant number of women. And the benefit of doing so is tiny to nil, unlike the policy mandating insurance companies to provide affordable or even free contraception. The latter may violate a religious liberty (I don't think that it does, given the scope and function of the policy) but it protects, with well-determined statistical evidence, individual liberties that are threatened by lack of affordable access to contraceptives.

And I agree, there shouldn't be force used in either of these cases and when it comes to contraceptive products, I can find them for free at a number of health places around my city and I live in a pretty conservative area. Likewise, I know in the military we are pretty liberal when it comes to providing contraceptives to our people in all forms, pills, condoms, and surgery. I know condoms are the only one of the three that are capable of doing anything about STD's, but my contacts in public health tell me STD cases are still rather common. Why? I don't think it's the problem with access, it is simply with going and getting them and using them.

So I don't think that we can equate the two; but, even if we could, it wouldn't be good policy, anyhow.

I don't think one should be forced to do something against their morals as long as these morals do not create harm to others (IE human sacrifice should be forbidden). I do know why these republicans are doing it, they are hoping for this emotional connection because an ultra sound does create that emotional connection for many moms and dads alike. Plus, an abortion, in most cases, isn't a medical needed procedure either.

Well, no matter what Senator Kyl says, 90%+ of Planned Parenthood's funding goes to providing preventative care, which would include everything from breast exams to contraceptives to STD testing. Only 3% of Planned Parenthood funding (again, all private funds) was used for abortion services.

And how can we say that 'your money' will not go towards any abortion service cause it does indirectly support those services. I have no issue with those kind of problems, I do have issues with them supporting an abortion.

Defunding Planned Parenthood would have immediate and severe negative effects on women's health. What the GOP has never seriously considered is creating a national women's health service that parallels what Planned Parenthood does without providing abortion services, eventually making defunding PP a feasible option.

That is what they should do, but I find many politicians are so out of touch with the rest of society, they have no clue what is going on.

Same thing they say about democracy . . . "the worst system imaginable, except for every other one tried."

I'll have to go back and look for the specific study that I'm thinking of but here's the Joint Economic Committee's "Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy." The parts concerning wage inequality start on pg. 65. If you're pressed for time, here's the Wikipedia (entry) and here's a graph compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau for full-time workers in 2009 (source):

6a00d83451c45669e2014e8bfb387e970d-800wi.png

One of the big issues that GOP politicians usually address is the government retaining poor workers and increasing their salaries based on "time in." While I agree that many discriminations would be eliminated using such a method, you're not likely going to get many hardcore "free market" thinkers to go along with such a process!

I think that is misleading because it doesn't say what these degrees are in, it lumps them all in. For example, I know more doctors are men over women. Likewise, there are more male then female lawyers. It needs to be broken down by degree and experience to really be a good measurement to tell us anything. Is a doctor going to make more then a nurse? Of course, so do male doctors make more then female doctors with the same specialty, degree, and experience? It doesn't say, so how can we know? We have no idea what this data means because it doesn't break it down by major, experience level, skill level, etc. Likewise, are there many women that join the work place, get married, have babies, decided to stay and raise these babies, and return to work after their babies are adults or at least able to take care of themselves? Yes, so right there that is 10-20 years of working experience that will not be there as opposed to the men that didn't? So they will end up making less. Likewise, many women are just like Ann Romney is too, they got a degree, but they never used this degree in the work place and decided to be housewives as opposed to career women. That is the problem I find with these studies, it does not tell me anything useful and is simply a talking point. It doesn't break things down to any meaningful level and doesn't cover the facts. More men get careers in higher paying areas, less men decided to be stay at home dads as opposed to women that do, and this study doesn't appear to account for this at all. It's worthless for anything meaningful. While mine is broke down, I have x years at my job, I have X rank, I am in X job, etc so my pay will be y dollars, no matter what my sex is. That is how it needs to be broken down, to be meaningful. Many of my girl friends work part time just for something to do, some of them have degrees so it would show they make less, my cousin has a masters and is just getting in the work place,so she also is going to show a lower earnings because her experience level is 10 years behind her age group, one of my other cousins was a stay at home mom and earned her masters too so she is behind her peers as well. Therefore, this chart is is worthless cause it doesn't say anything.

If only we could fire all the politicians and start with clean alternatives . . . <dreamland>

It is sad when we got politicians in office since before I was born (and I'm closer to my 30's then my 20's).

[nickcopernicus]

Awe, I see... so you simply assume what she does is the same as what your mom does.

Nick:
No, I don’t assume that. You asked me if I had any idea and I replied that I did.

lilpixyofterror:
I know being a working mom is hard, but you do know that good husbands share in the responsibility, right? It is cute though that you have not a clue what she does on a day to day bases, you have no idea if she is helping with her husbands stuff (you know, like with campaign trails), you have no idea what her day to day things around the house is, how much work her children create for her, etc, but you automatically know it must not be any work at all.

Nick:
So she’s her husband’s helper. No, I’m afraid I don’t find that hard work at all.

lilpixyofterror:
I've played the part of housewife before Nick and I was a busy as I was at work, so stop pretending you automatically know what she is doing on the account of your home life growing up.

Nick:
You’ve been a housewife once? Well that completely destroys any chance you had with me.
Anyway, Lady Romney said she raised five children. If I know what raising children entails, then chances are, I have some idea as to what she was doing. I don’t give a crap if she was volunteering for this organization or helping her husband with that campaign.

Cheers,

Nick

[lilpixieofterror]

No, I don’t assume that. You asked me if I had any idea and I replied that I did.

Which is based on one story, yours.

So she’s her husband’s helper. No, I’m afraid I don’t find that hard work at all.

Awe, more assumptions. So you know it's not 'hard work' because....

You’ve been a housewife once? Well that completely destroys any chance you had with me.

One I'm married and two when I was off work, I did many of the things housewives do Nick and it wasn't a walk in the park like you seem to think it is or always will be.

Anyway, Lady Romney said she raised five children. If I know what raising children entails, then chances are, I have some idea as to what she was doing. I don’t give a crap if she was volunteering for this organization or helping her husband with that campaign.

So you are bias and just finding a way to hate upon a person you do know know anything about beyond what the news story reports.

[nickcopernicus]

Lastly, for those who maintain that Mrs. Romney never worked outside the home and is out of touch here is a partial list of what she's been involved with since being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1998:
[…list of stuff deleted…]

Nick:
So basically, she was a community organizer? How quaint. I’m sorry but that list is exactly what I would expect from Lady Romney. I mean “Volunteers for the American Red Cross?” Volunteers how, exactly? Did she fly to Libya and help treat victims, or did she make an appearance at some carwash?
Anyhow, moving on.

rogue06:
She attended Stanford University and later Brigham Young University (BYU) and the University of Grenoble in France. While married and still an undergrad at BYU "Lady Romney" lived in a $75/month basement apartment after the birth of their first child. She finished her undergraduate degree after they moved to Boston by taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School in 1975.

Nick:
I see. So, while she was living in this $75/mo apartment, did she have healthcare insurance? If they were so poor, where did they come up with the money to pay for doctors bills after having the child? How did she manage to study abroad? I don’t know many peasants who are able to jet around the world to go to school.
One more thing, Romney’s little missionary trips don’t impress me. I see it as one of those things were a rich man pretends to sell all his things to go follow Jesus. Only, after Jesus left, the rich man got his stuff back.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Please don't shift the topic from contraceptives to general health care even though that's what you have to try to do if you want to make these equivalent. Contraceptives are available cheaply. I've heard the figure $9/mth bandied about but heard it was both a high and low estimate though everyone agrees they're essentially free at clinics.

Condoms are available for cheap; they have a 15% failure rate and many women aren't exactly in a position where they can demand condom use by their spouses or partners.

The birth control pill is better; the various drugs have a collective 8% failure rate. Of course, they're not by any means cheap if a woman happens to be unable to use the $4 generic variety — and especially not cheap if they are not covered by a woman's health insurance.

Highly effective birth control, the kind with a <1% failure rate is expensive — for individuals, at least. The costs are actually offset by reduced outlays if the purchaser is the insurance companies but that's neither here nor there.

But I don't have shift the topic: if you argue that Rosen's statement was a direct attack on stay-at-home moms everywhere, a person absolutely could argue that the same logic applies to generalizing Bill O'Reilly's statements. Both addressed a specific person. If you want to generalize Rosen's statement, the same logic is applicable to O'Reilly's. That's my point, on topic.

But the argument was that there was some real equivalency between Limbaugh's three-day tirade against Sandra Fluke and Rosen's one-off statement about Ann Romney. You said that a big difference was that Limbaugh was off on his own while Rosen had a cheerleading crowd supporting her. But if you have to parse it so thin as to see a difference between Bill O'Reilly's common ground with Rush and, say, Kornaki's or Fugelsang's common ground with Rosen, I'm going to call that a distinction without a difference.

—Sam

[nickcopernicus]

Which is based on one story, yours.

Nick:
And yours is based off ___________?

lilpixyofterror:
Awe, more assumptions. So you know it's not 'hard work' because....

Nick:
.....it would be easy for me. I'll concede that perhaps it was hard work for her. "Difficult" is a subjective word, after all.

Lilpixyofterror:
One I'm married and two when I was off work, I did many of the things housewives do Nick and it wasn't a walk in the park like you seem to think it is or always will be.

Nick:
You got married?! Well let me congradulate you on that. A side question: are you still in the Airforce? I'm still in Iraq. I've been here since before I joined Theologyweb.

Lilangelofterror:
So you are bias and just finding a way to hate upon a person you do know know anything about beyond what the news story reports.

Nick:
While hate is too strong of a word, essentially, you're correct. We all have our faults.

Cheers,

Nick

[moreta]

....is who Mitt Romney chose to be his spokesperson for women's economic issues. How laughable. Although politically incorrect, Hilary Rosen hit the nail on the head. What would a conservative housewife know of the struggles of middle or lower-class women trying to find a job? She claimed "I chose to stay home and raise five boys" and that it was "hard work." I doubt that stupid woman even knows how to pump gas. My mother did the same thing.....only she had to work as well. I guess Ann the housewife has also been working hard since her youngest child graduated highschool 13 years ago. What "hard work" has she been doing since then? I wish Mitt and his 'helper' would stop trying to act like they somehow can relate to the majority of Americans (those who aren't multimillionaires) and try to keep it real. Stop making such obvious gaffes like claiming that Obama spent too much time at Harvard (Romney spent more time as a student than Obama).

If only we had a real third choice.

Does anyone here think that Romney and his housewife, who lost to McCain, who then lost to Obama, has any real chance of winning the election?

Cheers,

Nick

Be careful Nick. I am a conservative, and have been all my adult life. I have also been lower to low middle class. And I was a houswife for much of my marriage. Please don't assume that all conservatives have money, and those that don't are liberals.