What an asinine theory. So who would you have running the country?
Virtually all politicians should not be in office, from both parties according to you.

Classic, the ENTIRE point of EVERYTHING Rosen said was that, since Ann Romney has no contact with the world of employment, she has no business "advising" Mitt on what it's like for unemployed women. My understanding was that that's all Pico's saying - that Ann has no qualifications or experience with the challenges facing unemployed people, and has never been unemployed or impoverished herself, so claiming that she has some sort of advisory knowledge on the subject is unreasonable and misguided.

that... doesn't make sense to me. on one hand he had his own family's resort thing that lead to the whole Niger scandal because it had it in its name, and in the same time they where struggling for money?

have they thought of selling or renting it out (possibly after a name change)?

Nobody said their experience and wealth made them unfit to run the country. Just that she was not qualified to advise Mitt on what life is like for unemplyed women.

If he wants to know what unemployed wiomen, or indeed anyone on the breadline, face in life, he should find someone else to ask. That's all.

How does that differ from virtually any other politician, Dana?
Its a BS argument. Thats all.

Because NOT EVERY POLITICIAN claims that their WEALTHY WIFE is their advisor on UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG WOMEN. most politicians have advisors who have spent a career working on the subject, and even if they dont have personal experience, have academic or otherwise relevant experience with the subject matter at hand. Just like, living in Taipei for six years in/around high school doesn't make me a China expert, so if I were who Obama was getting to advise him on China policy, it would be a terrible shortcoming. Likewise, being a woman and once living in a cheap apartment doesn't make Ann an expert on poverty and the struggles of working-class women, and to point to her as his chief advisor in that capacity is laughable.

THAT I agree with. Unfortunately NO ONE ever said she was speaking on behalf of "unemployed women"
No one ever claimed that she was, nor that she did.
Provide supporting evidence please.


What was said:
THATS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. And he is correct. I see nothing wrong with it. Do you? Is he wrong?
What I see is the left is distorting the shit out of this. You are buying into it hook, line & sinker. Step back and TRY to assess what was actually said and how it was distorted for political purposes.

Please quote where he actually said those things you claim and I'll shut up about it.

Oh, and one last quote -

Who are Ann Romney's peers, the ones who she would be commiserating with about what women really are worried about? They are NOT women who are concerned about jobs, or the rising cost of groceries and gas and medical expenses. So, the women she hangs out with know NOTHING about the worry and anxiety regular women deal with on a daily basis. And so using her to speak about what the majority of women care about is just dishonest.

It's also kind of sexist. Like women have this deep and innate understanding of each other, simply on the grounds they're all female. We don't make the same assumption about men. Why would she have any greater understanding of what a working-class woman goes through and worries about than Mitt himself?

wait... if you don't have some deep and innate understanding of each other - and thus other women then yourself - simply on the ground of being female... how do you know that other women aren't making that assumption about men?

also, how do you know that other women don't make that assumption about themselves, believing that they have a deep and innate understanding of other women - regardless if its true or not?

also, how do you know other women don't actually have a deep and innate understanding of other women, and for some obscure reason you weren't included in the secret hand-shake?

By 'we' I meant our society in general.

Western culture generally assumes a level of female consciousness that somehow bonds women together in ways men don't experience.

This is probably not the time for me to have a rant about some of the feminist readings of eighteenth century female identity. It just adds to the noise. It's the consolation prize. Men have the economic and political power, but dont worry ladies, you have the close bonds and sisterhood and the power of life blahdeblahdeblah.

... and the distortion/distractions continue. Unfortunate, but expected.

For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents. I believe Ann Romney has had a priveledged married life. That doesn't exclude her from having the right to offer her opinions to her husband regarding women's issues, anymore than Hilary Clinton or Michelle Obama or any first lady for that matter. But every person's life experience is different and I think it is a mistake to rely on only one voice for opinions or advice on ANY subject. Over half this country is female and if you want to be president you better talk to a lot of them to find out the best way to serve them as president.

Wait, what? We're allowed to VOTE? Since when? ;)