Rosen vs Romney: That's what she saidFollow

I'm bored and liberal, what do you expect?

Promiscuity and abortions.

Because what you're repeating isn't what Rosen was saying. She didn't criticize Anne Romney for being rich (although I agree that this was clearly her intent), she criticized her for not working. A choice made by millions of women and usually championed by liberals like Rosen.

The issue is that Rosen clearly wanted to make a dig at the Romney's wealth, but saying something like "She can't know anything about handling money because she's got so much of it" might not have played so well. So instead, she went with the "doesn't work" angle. But in the process basically was saying that women who don't work don't know anything about economics, don't understand money, should not have any opinions about it, and if they do, those opinions should be ignored.

I'm sure you can see why some people found that a tad offensive.



What's "normal" though? I'd argue that the more money you have the more complicated a household budget becomes. While we can certainly say that Anne Romney didn't have to worry so much about pinching pennies (although rich people don't become rich by spending wastefully), she arguably had to handle a hell of a lot more money matters than the typical housewife. When you've got 10 times as many bills to pay, it's kinda 10 times as much work regardless of how much money you have. And while I'm sure they had hired help for some of that stuff, that's also more work to manage. Employing people requires a fair amount of paperwork, right?

What she did may not have been identical to what the typical housewife does, but to argue that it somehow makes her unqualified to have any opinions about economics is beyond absurd.



Ok. But that's not remotely the point made in the article. They seemed to be making a big deal of the fact that Romney's aid, when asked this off topic question out of the blue didn't have an answer right off the bat, and that Romney "eventually" gave them an answer (with eventually apparently being just a few hours later). I don't recall that the article made any sort of analysis of the answer itself.

My point is that it's a contrived story. They planted someone in a low level meeting, tossed a question they knew the staffer would not have a prepared answer for, and then wrote an entire story about this. Um... Ok. Why is this a story? Because it fits a narrative. That's it. The narrative is that Romney is bad on women's issues, so lets write as many stories that fit that narrative as possible. And if we can't find a story, let's invent one out of thin air.

And I reiterate that if Mitt has Ann Romney managing their wealth, he's doing it wrong. 200+ million dollars needs to be cultivated by professionals, and the Romneys can certainly afford the best accountants in the business.

#firstworldproblems

You're not voting for him either way, so why worry?

I'm liberal and bored, I said. And now drunk too.

Yes, which is why I highly doubt Ann Romney is in charge of the household finances.

Because other people will? When Obama wins the election, I'll stop worrying about how Mitt manages his finances.

Why worry? It doesn't matter what someone runs as, once they're in office they become homogenized right into the middle and the only difference is the self-imposed label of the people praising and scapegoating them.

Looks like we've got ourselves a badasscynic over here...