Tag Archives: Ann Romney never worked
Ann Romney’s been denied the dignity of work?
So, last week it was the height of insult to stay at homes to merely suggest Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life, but lo and behold, who said just a few months ago that poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and “have the dignity of work”?
If you said Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presumptive presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney you’d be absolutely correct, and you’d win a cookie. In fact, Willard gave the world this pearl of wisdom just last January; sort of undercuts the whole sense of righteous indignation and extreme pique he demonstrated last week defending his wife against the unmitigated attacks from Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen.
According to Huffington Post, Willard’s seemingly forgotten remark, made to a 1950’s era conservative Manchester, N.H., audience was unearthed by MSNBC’s “Up w/Chris Hayes,” and aired during his show this past weekend.
For Willard it appears there’s clearly a difference between stay-at-home moms supported by federal assistance and those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. According to Willard, poor women shouldn’t be given the choice his wife was able to afford; instead they should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits.
“Even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work,” Willard declared of moms on TANF.
“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Willard mewed. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.'”
But wait, Mitt’s January view simply echoes a remark he made in 1994 during his failed Senate campaign when he said, “This is a different world than it was in the 1960s when I was growing up, when you used to have Mom at home and Dad at work,” Romney said “Now Mom and Dad both have to work whether they want to or not, and usually one of them has two jobs.”
WHOA, HOLD THE PHONE MATE! So, in other words Willard’s admitting his wife’s never experienced “the dignity of work”?
Of course for families like the Romney’s it’s still the 1960’s and Mom gets to stay home making those tough economic decisions like, “how many car elevators do we really need?”
President defends Ann Romney?
According to the Associated Press (AP), President Barack Obama’s sticking up for Ann Romney, the wife of Republican Tea Party (GOTP) rival Willard Mitt Romney and the apparent target of a Democratic operative who’s suggesting she’s unqualified to speak about the economy’s tolls because she’s “never worked a day in her life.”
“It was the wrong thing to say,” Obama told WCMH-TV in Columbus, Ohio. Criticism of candidates’ spouses should be out of bounds, he added.
Polls show women lean heavily Democratic and favor Obama by a wide margin in battleground states, and unfortunately for Willard, he must win at least 40 percent of the women’s vote to have a shot at beating the President.
Willard’s keeping his mouth shut on the issue – so far – allowing Ann to comment, saying raising five sons is hard work and that while she never has worried about finances, she has faced the ordeals of cancer and multiple sclerosis.
Everyone should be able to agree on a couple of things here; first, the candidate’s wives “should” be out of bounds, however, the First Lady’s been repeatedly attacked by the talking heads on the right from the beginning of the last campaign in 2008; second, mothers work a lot harder than fathers and raising children is a full-time job; that being said however, raising children when you have hundreds of millions of dollars squirreled away in off shore accounts is considerably easier than raising kids when you’re worried about where the rent money’s coming from or if the only food your children get during the day will be from their school.
Mrs. Romney has faced tremendous challenges in her life, and she’s no doubt infinitely qualified to address those challenges as a woman; however, she’s not remotely qualified to address many other issues facing women today, or to be the person Willard turns to when he wants a woman’s opinion.
For instance:
Can she address everyday women’s healthcare issues? Nope, sorry, $200 million in off-shore accounts pretty well assure she’s never waited in clinics all day to be seen by an over-worked staff; nor have her children. On top of this, her hubby says he’s going to end Planned Parenthood and all its health programs for women. What’s Ann’s opinion on that decision affecting millions of women?
Can she address women’s employment issues? Nope, sorry, again there’s that $200 million staring her in the face; on top of that “little” issue, she’s been a stay at home mom who’s never been employed; she hasn’t had to go out and supplement the family income, she hasn’t had to leave her boys in day care or with relatives while she went to work being paid less than her male counter-parts.
Can she address women’s pay issues? Nope, sorry again, she’s never been paid less than her male-counterparts because she’s never worked.
Can she address women’s economic issues? Nope, sorry, when you have $200 million sitting in the Caymans you really don’t worry about the price of a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a new back pack or pair of tennis shoes.
Wait, what about the price of a gallon of gas, after all doesn’t she have two Cadillacs?
Clearly there’s a plethora of women’s issues where Ann would be just as clueless as her husband, and that’s the point being made the other day, albeit badly.
The Romney’s can’t have it both ways, they can’t live in the world of Thurston and Lovey Howell III, while trying to pretend to be Ozzie and Harriett, and then get offended when someone calls them on it. They don’t know the struggles of “the little people” because they’re not now, nor ever have been in that classification, so please spare the electorate from the pretended outrage.
The Liberty Tree 