Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: What's going on with romney and moms? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
The neutral evil villain known as
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Ow quit it.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have tried to ignore it, but now am curious because it's not going away.

More than opinions and rants, I'd like a serious rundown of what happened please.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nothing more then childish name calling. Romeny does not bleive that taxes shuld be used to enable anyone (including mothers of young children) to stay at home and not work. His opponents have pointed out that this must include his wife, but she (as far as I am ware) is not in reicept of state hand outs. His wife appears to have said somewthing abut a womans right to choose how she lives her life, which has then been seized as as being pro-death (as well as the idea that this contradicts what her husband has said about childcare benefits). Of course what they are both talking about is the right of a woman to choose to stay at home, if they can afford to and nothing else.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A friend/advisor to the President named Hilary Rosen made a crack that was intended as a slam on Romney but ended up being interpreted as a slam on his wife.

Hilary Rosen wrote:
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 am hearing. Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.


It was a pretty low blow, although I don't think that was the intent. Typical for a badly played political jab, though, the conservatives were able to somewhat successfully spin it as "Obama advisor slams stay-at-home moms."

Rosen apologized. The conservatives tried to push it as a sign that Democrats are engaging in their own "war on women," to co-opt the Democrat's recent battle cry. The Democrats tried to spin it back by pointing out that Rosen has her own children, etc. The noise machines shouted at each other and at the end of the day no one really seems to care about the whole kerfuffle except as a worn-out talking point. It dominated a news cycle, so that's a win for the conservatives, but I don't think it's a major story for the election.

More recently, Ann Romney was caught on a hot mic tape saying that the controversy was a "birthday present" because of the way they were able to spin it positively, so I think it's safe to say she hasn't taken it to heart either.

Editorializing: It was a stupid manufactured controversy. I think the conservatives tried to make something out of nothing, but that was only fair as I think Rosen was also trying to make something out of nothing (as if she believes that Romney takes advice on working women's issues solely from his wife who doesn't work) and overall it was just a lot of knee jerk bullshit.
11 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.




I think that is what I said, his issue is not with them being at home. His issue is with them getting hand outs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.





Which I've heard parroted a bit around here, but can't figure out why it's funny. Of course you can't stay at home if you can't afford it. Life's rough. Expecting the state to pay you to stay home just because rich people get to do it is beyond foolish.
8 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lets rewind a little further:

Since Republicans regained majorities in the House and many state legislatures in 2010, they have rolled back (or attempted to roll back) rights on abortion and birth control about 90 times. In addition there have been rollbacks on equal pay legislation. Democrats have been portraying this as a "War on Women".

Romney has been trying to combat this probably because he is losing badly with women in the polls. He has supported some of the legislative actions above, but insists that what women really care about are economic issues and he backed this up by saying that his wife confirms this.

Continue with Dave G above. I would only add that just about everyone, including Hilary Rosen herself, has repudiated her statement. So if Romney is trying to continue this as a political argument, there's no one on the other side.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:


Continue with Dave G above. I would only add that just about everyone, including Hilary Rosen herself, has repudiated her statement. So if Romney is trying to continue this as a political argument, there's no one on the other side.


That is correct. I wouldn't pretend that those repudiations ever matter to defusing this sort of story, though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.


Which I've heard parroted a bit around here, but can't figure out why it's funny. Of course you can't stay at home if you can't afford it. Life's rough. Expecting the state to pay you to stay home just because rich people get to do it is beyond foolish.


If he said that, I'd have no problem with it. Instead he talks about the dignity of work. This implies that child care is not work, which is exactly what Hilary Rosen was pilloried for implying. Is there not a little hypocrisy there?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.


Which I've heard parroted a bit around here, but can't figure out why it's funny. Of course you can't stay at home if you can't afford it. Life's rough. Expecting the state to pay you to stay home just because rich people get to do it is beyond foolish.


If he said that, I'd have no problem with it. Instead he talks about the dignity of work. This implies that child care is not work, which is exactly what Hilary Rosen was pilloried for implying. Is there not a little hypocrisy there?


It's a stretch, Rich. In one case he's talking about the dignity of work vs. the dignity of staying home on the dole. He's not implying that child care isn't work. To me it sounds like he's using "the dignity of work" as a shorthand for "the dignity of earning the money that supports your family with your own work."
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.
Which I've heard parroted a bit around here, but can't figure out why it's funny. Of course you can't stay at home if you can't afford it. Life's rough. Expecting the state to pay you to stay home just because rich people get to do it is beyond foolish.
The angle was that when Rosen tossed a life-preserver to Ann Romney, then all of a sudden stay-at-home moms were the "best thing evar," yet Romney 3 months ago seemed to be saying, "Get the fuck outta the house and make a living, you fat, bloated, welfare-sucking, bonbon-chomping, baby-making, leeching sea-cow." Because, as we both know, nothing gets a room full of Republicans hotter & sweatier than strident talk of kicking those damn poor people off of the government teat and back into their menial jobs where they should be: Serving the priveleged.

It's the whole "paint Romney as a flip-flopper" motif that the Left has had a somewhat modest level of success at.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.
Which I've heard parroted a bit around here, but can't figure out why it's funny. Of course you can't stay at home if you can't afford it. Life's rough. Expecting the state to pay you to stay home just because rich people get to do it is beyond foolish.
The angle was that when Rosen tossed a life-preserver to Ann Romney, then all of a sudden stay-at-home moms were the "best thing evar," yet Romney 3 months ago seemed to be saying, "Get the fuck outta the house and make a living, you fat, bloated, welfare-sucking, bonbon-chomping, baby-making, leeching sea-cow." Because, as we both know, nothing gets a room full of Republicans hotter & sweatier than strident talk of kicking those damn poor people off of the government teat and back into their menial jobs where they should be: Serving the priveleged.

It's the whole "paint Romney as a flip-flopper" motif that the Left has had a somewhat modest level of success at.





I think it's easy to paint Romney as a flip-flopper--Romneycare, anyone?--but that this case is a classic partisan flap over nothing. YMMV.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
rshipley wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.


Which I've heard parroted a bit around here, but can't figure out why it's funny. Of course you can't stay at home if you can't afford it. Life's rough. Expecting the state to pay you to stay home just because rich people get to do it is beyond foolish.


If he said that, I'd have no problem with it. Instead he talks about the dignity of work. This implies that child care is not work, which is exactly what Hilary Rosen was pilloried for implying. Is there not a little hypocrisy there?


It's a stretch, Rich. In one case he's talking about the dignity of work vs. the dignity of staying home on the dole. He's not implying that child care isn't work. To me it sounds like he's using "the dignity of work" as a shorthand for "the dignity of earning the money that supports your family with your own work."


Given the context of women's economic concerns, wasn't Rosen using "work" as shorthand for "earning money to support your family" in almost the exact same way?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
rshipley wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
... and then Jon Stewart upped the ante last nite on The Daily Show by playing the clip I embedded above, insinuating that Romney is OK with stay-at-home moms as long as they can afford not to work.


Which I've heard parroted a bit around here, but can't figure out why it's funny. Of course you can't stay at home if you can't afford it. Life's rough. Expecting the state to pay you to stay home just because rich people get to do it is beyond foolish.


If he said that, I'd have no problem with it. Instead he talks about the dignity of work. This implies that child care is not work, which is exactly what Hilary Rosen was pilloried for implying. Is there not a little hypocrisy there?


It's a stretch, Rich. In one case he's talking about the dignity of work vs. the dignity of staying home on the dole. He's not implying that child care isn't work. To me it sounds like he's using "the dignity of work" as a shorthand for "the dignity of earning the money that supports your family with your own work."


Given the context of women's economic concerns, wasn't Rosen using "work" as shorthand for "earning money to support your family" in almost the exact same way?


I don't think so, no. Rosen was trying to say it was dumb for Romney to listen to his wife on the concerns of working women because she's never had a job. She clumsily handled the talking point and made it sound like she was ripping on Ann Romney for being pampered and never having to work. Romney's campaign tried to spin it further, as if she was suggesting that all stay at home moms are pampered and don't have to do any work.

Rosen was using "work" as shorthand for "Ann Romney's rich ass hasn't ever had a job." Which, as I mentioned, is only a valid point if we do engage in the same hyper-partisan spin game and try to make it sound like Mitt Romney's only connection to women's issues is through his wife while also pretending it's ok to suggest that because Ann Romney is wealthy and doesn't have to work she could never understand working women's issues.

If you think the first point is valid, I'd venture to suggest that Mitt Romney has probably figured out that listening to only his wife on any issue is unlikely to get him the information he needs. If you think that second one is valid, I encourage you never to speak up on behalf of women's rights again, seeing as how you couldn't possibly understand women's issues what with not being a woman.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I think Dave has it nailed exactly. His opinions are further to the left than my own but he has kept those opinions out, here. I find his precis quite intellectually honest.
.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:

I think Dave has it nailed exactly. His opinions are further to the left than my own but he has kept those opinions out, here. I find his precis quite intellectually honest.
.


Thanks, Isaac. It's not that I agree with Romney about much of anything, I just think this attack and the subsequent made-for-TV controversy were both a lot of BS. In terms of cold, hard reality, Rosen's clumsy handling of a talking point gave the GOP what they needed to paint her and by extension the Dems as being insensitive to working moms. It didn't really work because the points had to be stretched so thin, but it's no more honest for liberals to pretend that this shows some hypocrisy on Romney's part than it is for conservatives to pretend they honestly believe this stupid soundbite actually tells us anything about the liberal attitude towards women.

That said, this is an election year and this is the muck elections are made of. This certainly won't be the last time we see some nonsense like this.

Edit: The writing major in is totally appalled that I used "this" four times in the last two sentences. Just thought you should know.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The neutral evil villain known as
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Ow quit it.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess what it boils down to is people trying to get a foothold and hoping to make each other look bad.

I don't care one way or the other for any of them but it's entertaining.
Thanks everyone.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
rshipley wrote:
Given the context of women's economic concerns, wasn't Rosen using "work" as shorthand for "earning money to support your family" in almost the exact same way?


I don't think so, no. Rosen was trying to say it was dumb for Romney to listen to his wife on the concerns of working women because she's never had a job. She clumsily handled the talking point and made it sound like she was ripping on Ann Romney for being pampered and never having to work. Romney's campaign tried to spin it further, as if she was suggesting that all stay at home moms are pampered and don't have to do any work.

Rosen was using "work" as shorthand for "Ann Romney's rich ass hasn't ever had a job." Which, as I mentioned, is only a valid point if we do engage in the same hyper-partisan spin game and try to make it sound like Mitt Romney's only connection to women's issues is through his wife while also pretending it's ok to suggest that because Ann Romney is wealthy and doesn't have to work she could never understand working women's issues.

If you think the first point is valid, I'd venture to suggest that Mitt Romney has probably figured out that listening to only his wife on any issue is unlikely to get him the information he needs. If you think that second one is valid, I encourage you never to speak up on behalf of women's rights again, seeing as how you couldn't possibly understand women's issues what with not being a woman.


I think both of them used the word "work" in a way that would exclude taking care of your own children. I'm not defending Rosen's comment or attacking Romney's earlier statement, but I think it is fair to compare the two to show that there was no real substance here other than something that sounded insulting and was fairly quickly apologized for.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:


I think both of them used the word "work" in a way that would exclude taking care of your own children. I'm not defending Rosen's comment or attacking Romney's earlier statement, but I think it is fair to compare the two to show that there was no real substance here other than something that sounded insulting and was fairly quickly apologized for.



Romney was talking about work in the context of "working vs. not wokring and on welfare." Rosen was talking about work in the context of "working outside the home vs. not working outside the home." Those are not the same context.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
It's a stretch, Rich. In one case he's talking about the dignity of work vs. the dignity of staying home on the dole. He's not implying that child care isn't work. To me it sounds like he's using "the dignity of work" as a shorthand for "the dignity of earning the money that supports your family with your own work."


I think there's a perspective shift here. You're saying "If you want to stay home with your kids, fine, but we're not going to subsidize it with tax dollars."

But that misses the idea that there is value to having a parent staying at home and focusing on child-rearing . If there is a value there, then you're saying "You are only entitled to that valuable aspect of family if you have money."

Do we, as a society, believe that children, families, and ultimately communities derive a benefit from having a parent staying at home? If so, then shouldn't that benefit be available to all families regardless of income level?

Which perspective is the "right" one? The one that looks at staying at home strictly as a luxury that should be available only to those who can afford it without help; or the one that says there is a community value to having a parent in the home, and therefore we should make it attainable for more families?
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
It's a stretch, Rich. In one case he's talking about the dignity of work vs. the dignity of staying home on the dole. He's not implying that child care isn't work. To me it sounds like he's using "the dignity of work" as a shorthand for "the dignity of earning the money that supports your family with your own work."


I think there's a perspective shift here. You're saying "If you want to stay home with your kids, fine, but we're not going to subsidize it with tax dollars."

But that misses the idea that there is value to having a parent staying at home and focusing on child-rearing . If there is a value there, then you're saying "You are only entitled to that valuable aspect of family if you have money."

Do we, as a society, believe that children, families, and ultimately communities derive a benefit from having a parent staying at home? If so, then shouldn't that benefit be available to all families regardless of income level?

Which perspective is the "right" one? The one that looks at staying at home strictly as a luxury that should be available only to those who can afford it without help; or the one that says there is a community value to having a parent in the home, and therefore we should make it attainable for more families?


I don't think so. You get all kinds of benefits by being at a higher income level. If that inherent value of having a parent in the home isn't of equal or lesser value of the money we as a society have to spend to make that possible, then it's not worthwhile. You've definitely got a valid point, but we can't equalize everything for everyone. While I think social welfare programs are absolutely, 100% a good and necessary thing for government to be involved in (I'm still a liberal, damn it!) I don't think that it's a bad thing to try to minimize the people who need that assistance.

In this case, the initial value is a wash, sure--the government could give you money to stay home or money for daycare so you can work--but only one of those has potential for further improvement. If the government pays for you to stay home, you'll always stay home on the government's dime. If the government pays for daycare you're potentially advancing in your workplace, making more money, eventually even making enough that the government doesn't need to subsidize your daycare any more. Your life situation is improved, and the government's assistance produced a net positive benefit for the money spent. That's how government assistance should work in my mind.

Unlike the conservatives, I'm not inclined to just cut people off of government assistance here when they have kids old enough for daycare as a rule, but I would try to create incentives that make going to work a better deal than staying home.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
rshipley wrote:


I think both of them used the word "work" in a way that would exclude taking care of your own children. I'm not defending Rosen's comment or attacking Romney's earlier statement, but I think it is fair to compare the two to show that there was no real substance here other than something that sounded insulting and was fairly quickly apologized for.


Romney was talking about work in the context of "working vs. not wokring and on welfare." Rosen was talking about work in the context of "working outside the home vs. not working outside the home." Those are not the same context.


I understand the hairs you are trying to split, but they both used work in a way that excluded taking care of children (since being on welfare means you have children to take care of) and both meant working outside the home. It is a fairly common use of the word work and I don't fault them for using it that way (though Rosen did sound insulting and Romney sounded patronizing).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
In this case, the initial value is a wash, sure--the government could give you money to stay home or money for daycare so you can work--but only one of those has potential for further improvement. If the government pays for you to stay home, you'll always stay home on the government's dime.


I don't think that's true. There's no reason we can't craft subsidies to allow a parent to stay home (or stay home more) during a child's early years and taper off to no subsidies in later years.

Quote:
If the government pays for daycare you're potentially advancing in your workplace, making more money, eventually even making enough that the government doesn't need to subsidize your daycare any more. Your life situation is improved, and the government's assistance produced a net positive benefit for the money spent. That's how government assistance should work in my mind.

Unlike the conservatives, I'm not inclined to just cut people off of government assistance here when they have kids old enough for daycare as a rule, but I would try to create incentives that make going to work a better deal than staying home.


Which is fine as long as there are jobs available that provide a living wage. And training available so that these parents are able to perform them. And daycare, as you suggested.

Does anybody have any data on what the current incentives really are in comparing staying at home to going out and trying to work?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I assumed from the title that this thread was going to be about Jarred.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.