¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 457
Registrado: ‎03-08-2012
0 Kudos


¿Quién es Mitt Romney?

Octubre 25, 2011 | Tags: 

El probable candidato presidencial por default del partido republicano para las elecciones del 2012, se ha convertido en un verdadero y peligroso enigma. Hasta el inicio de la campaña electoral, el ex gobernador de Massachusetts tenía una posición política tan clara como su biografía. Empresario exitoso y pragmático, mormón fervoroso y creyente en las conversiones post-mortem y otras supersticiones extrañas (para los seguidores de otras religiones que ven como naturales y evidentes las suyas propias),aplicó en Massachusetts un programa liberal y moderado que debería haber encarnado en su proyecto de campaña.


Romney, el candidato a gobernador de Massachusetts, estaba a favor de la despenalización del aborto y del derecho de las mujeres a decidir cuántos hijos quieren y de quién. Como gobernador electo diseñó un programa de salud casi idéntico al famoso Obamacare, que los republicanos han atacado sin tregua ni pausa y prometen destruir si retoman la Casa Blanca. El gobernador Romney se opuso también a permitir el libre funcionamiento de una industria que generaba energía con base en el carbón, contaminando el ambiente.”No voy a crear empleos, o a mantenerlos, a costa de matar ciudadanos” declaró Romney antes de aplicar a la planta en cuestión estrictas medidas para proteger el ambiente.

Ese  href="http://www.mittromney.com/landing/chris-christie-stands-mitt" target=_blank>Mitt Romney es el mismo que hoy se declara opuesto al aborto, rechaza el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, apoya la reducción del Estado y sus funciones redistributivas. Niega que el sistema de salud de Massachusetts se parezca al Obamacare. Ha acusado al gobernador tejano Rick Perry de no ser lo suficientemente duro frente a los inmigrantes ilegales, y ha hecho a un lado sus preocupaciones ambientalistas.

Más en Univision.com: href="http://foro.univision.com/t5/WQBA-1140-AM/THAT-S-AMORE-AFTER-AMORE-THE-END-OF-MEDICARE-JAJAJA/...

Mensajes: 457
Registrado: ‎03-08-2012




Mitt Romney No Tiene Vergüenza | Mitt Romney Has No Shame


Ad script in Spanish

Mitt Romney no tiene vergüenza. Muestra una cara a la comunidad hispana y otra completamente diferente a todos los demás.  

Por un lado, Romney es un multimillonario quien paga una tasa de impuestos injustamente baja. Pero por otro lado, acusa de oportunistas a los inmigrantes trabajadores, declarando que solo están aquí buscando limosnas. 

(Romney soundbite – English)

"… a lot of people just come here or come across, or walk across the border that have no skill, no education, and are looking for, for a free deal"

Romney dice que se preocupa por nuestros hijos, pero una y otra vez promete vetar el DREAM Act que abriría oportunidades educacionales para los jóvenes hispanos.  

Sus anuncios en español dicen que Romney "cree en nosotros", pero los hechos hablan por si solos. 

No nos dejemos engañar. Puede que tenga dos caras, pero sabemos bien quien es el verdadero Mitt Romney.   
Pagado por SEIU-COPE.  SEIU.org.  No autorizado por ningún candidato ni comité de un candidato.

Ad script in English

Mitt Romney has no shame. He shows one face to the Hispanic community and another completely different one to everyone else.  

On the one hand, Romney is a multimillionaire who pays an unfairly low tax rate. But on the other hand, he accuses hard working immigrants of being opportunistic, declaring that they're just here looking for handouts. 

(Romney soundbite – English)
"… a lot of people just come here or come across, or walk across the border that have no skill, no education, and are looking for, for a free deal"

Romney says he cares about our children, but time and time again he promises to veto the DREAM Act that would open educational opportunity for young Hispanics. 

His Spanish-language ads say Romney "believes in us", but his deeds speak for themselves. 

Let's not be fooled. He might have two faces, but we know all too well who the true Mitt Romney is. 

SEIU-COPE paid for and is responsible for the content of this ad. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. SEIU.org


Mensajes: 457
Registrado: ‎03-08-2012


[ Editado ]

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional  Scholar

[Excellent]America's Right ^ | April 2, 2012 | Jeff Schreiber


Dear Mr. President,

Supposedly, you are some sort of constitutional  scholar. At the very least, you can read, you can write, and despite being  merely some sort of guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, you  once famously referred to yourself as a “Constitutional Law professor.”

Ringing a bell so far, Mr. President? Great.

While my Juris Doctor is from the Rutgers School of Law in  Camden, New Jersey, and while Rutgers-Camden is hardly Harvard Law School,  within the first three days of Constitutional Law class those who did not  already know of and understand perhaps the single most important decision in the  history of the United States Supreme Court were introduced to Marbury v.  Madison.

In Marbury, the United States Supreme Court held that  federal courts across our nation not only have the authority, but also the duty, to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress–including  statutes and treaties–and to designate as void those acts of Congress which  countermand the United States Constitution. The term you’re searching  for between those flappy ears of yours, Mr. President, is “judicial  review.” And, while it has been nearly two years since I opened up a  Constitutional Law book and can now debate divorce and family law in South  Carolina better than I can the Constitution, I recall enough from law school and  bar exam study to know that the doctrine of “judicial review” is now settled  law.

In other words, since the landmark Marbury decision came down from the Court you belittle as “unelected” in 1803,  because of “judicial review,” federal courts in the United States of America  have the power–and duty–to review laws passed by Congress, decide whether or not  those laws either comport with our Constitution or countermand it, and either  uphold those laws that pass constitutional muster or declare void those laws  that do not.

Not a difficult concept, Mr. President. Not a  difficult concept for a first-year law student at Rutgers-Camden, and certainly  not a difficult concept for a Harvard Law grad who lectured on Constitutional  Law at University of Chicago Law School and later went on to deceive a nation  into crowning him president of the United States. This ain’t race-baiting or  class warfare, Mr. President, but Marburyand judicial review should  nonetheless certainly be in your wheelhouse.

So, what’s the problem? Earlier today, according to Fox News  and other sources, this apparently happened:

President Obama, employing his strongest  language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care  overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while  repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case  at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The  president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret  about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could  overturn a law approved by Congress.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not  take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law  that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

Those statements are so indicative of ignorance of not  only Constitutional Law but basic civics that I don’t even know where to  begin.

First, even a second-grader understand[s] that the the  United States Government is split into three separate branches in order to  insulate one from another and provide checks and balances for each. While it is  easy to understand how a totalitarian like yourself would have trouble  distinguishing the lines between the various branches; after all, you have an  established penchant for making illegitimate recess appointmentsand  facilitating regulatory and other extra-legislative mechanisms designed to  eschew and usurp the traditional role of the Legislative Branch — is it no  surprise that you are utterly incapable of understanding why Justices of the  United States Supreme Court are indeed unelected?

Second, that you would  preemptively describe as “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” the prospective  decision by the Supreme Court that your signature piece of legislation is  unconstitutional and therefore void shows that your ignorance is surpassed only  by your myopic inability to see past your political ideology and goals.  According to the Congressional Research Service’s The Constitution of the  United States, Analysis and Interpretation(the 2008 supplement, pages  163-164, in case you’re looking), as of 2010 the United States Supreme Court has  declared unconstitutional and therefore void a whopping 163 acts of Congress.  You do know what “unprecedented” means, right? The Supreme Court overturning  ObamaCare would hardly be “unprecedented” — perhaps it could be “unprecedented,  unless you count those previous 163 precedents.”

Want to know what is “unprecedented,” Mr. President?  Congress forcing free Americans into private contracts and penalizing those who  disobey. That’s unprecedented.

At this point, Mr. President,  just give up. Please. Every time you denigrate the Court and its Justices, who  have more legal knowledge in their smallest toenail than you have in your entire  body, you look more and more like the dullard that you apparently truly are. No  wonder you don’t want to release your transcripts — any undergraduate student  who fails to understand the most basic concept of Separation of Powers and any  law student that fails to understand the settled doctrine of judicial review  probably did not have marks worthy of tacking on the refrigerator  door.

I understand that, ideologically, your signature piece of  health care legislation is the perfect progressive fix. I understand how it  works. I understand how it slowly but surely interferes with insurers’ ability  to assess risk and thus slowly but surely facilitates an increase in premium  costs, therefore driving more and more people to clamor for a government fix.  It’s a brilliant political maneuver.

But it’s also  unconstitutional.

And when the Justices of the United States Supreme Court tell you as  much mere weeks before November’s election, it will not be because they are “unelected,” nor will it be because they somehow don’t understand the  legislation. The law simply runs afoul of the Commerce Clause of the United  States Constitution, and no amount of “strong majority of a democratically  elected Congress” will change that.

Wave the white flag, Mr. President. Or, preferably,  you can continue to make a fool of yourself. In my Trial Advocacy class at  Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who  was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let it  happen.


Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure  ain’t Harvard. Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and  smiling.

Good luck with your re-election.


Jeffrey M. Schreiber, Esq.

Más en Univision.com: href="http://foro.univision.com/t5/WQBA-1140-AM/TO-President-Barack-H-Obama-Constitutional-Scholar/t...

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



Contra viento y marea seguiremos denunciando la corrupción  y  los ataques a la libertad por el régimen marxista de Obama y con la  misma  intensidad y constancia como traemos a estos foros día, a día,   la verdad  sobre la tragedia que sufre el pueblo esclavizado y cautivo en  la isla prisión  de Cuba.

Es nuestra potestad y deber como exiliados cubanos y  fieles  ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, alertar al pueblo americano la  disyuntiva que  confrontarán en las elecciones de Noviembre, cuando se  decidirá si Estados  Unidos seguirá iluminando al mundo llevando en alto la  antorcha de  la  libertad, o optará por seguir la ruta de Cuba y  Venezuela escogida   por  Barack Hussein Obama.

La semana pasada, con el silencio cómplice de una prensa   prostituida y al servicio del régimen, Obama se abrogó poderes  extraordinarios  que le confieren declarar la “ley marcial” en tiempos de  paz, algo similar a los  que hizo Hitler al tomar el poder democráticamente  en Alemania para de inmediato  pasar en el parlamento alemán “the Enabling  Act” que le confería poderes  extraordinarios por 4 años sin posibilidad de  cambios en la ley.


Como dijo el   filósofo Jorge Santayana: "Quienes ignoran la historia estan  condenados  a repetir sus errores"

Los ataques a la Iglesia y a la libertad religiosa, el   incitamiento a revueltas raciales para provocar el caos, y el ataque de Obama  a  la Suprema Corte de Justicia, presagian disturbios y caos que Obama  aprovechará  para consolidar los poderes dictatoriales que ya se ha  abrogado a-priori  y  mantenerse en el poder pisoteando la  Constitución y la leyes de Estados Unidos.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution

April 3, 2012
By Frank Salvato


In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.

During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.

Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”

There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist.



Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.

Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:

“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska’s North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management…”

The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”

Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.

Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.

So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.”


The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just assume spit on the Constitution than try to understand it.


We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Socialist  Obama Envisions A Socialist America

Right Side News ^ | 4/9/2012 | J. D. Longstreet


Socialism IS Slavery -- To The  State!

so·cial·ism NOUN: 1. Any of various theories or systems of  social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is  owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls  the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between  capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the  dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.  (SOURCE)

The definition above clearly  describes Obama's agenda for America. Socialism.

Every time those of us who clearly see America's  President for what he is and dare to speak out publicly about the dangers to  American freedom and liberty Mr. Obama's agenda presents -- we are attacked as  ignorant boobs. The attacks themselves are a key part of the way socialism works -- silence those who would warn of the danger socialism  presents.

As Mr. Obama is campaigning for another chance to bring  America to her knees, there are those on the socialist plantation in America  preparing to flock to the polls and vote to draw the chains of socialism even  tighter around themselves and all Americans. They are the people the  fathers of Marxism and communism referred to as: “useful  idi..ots.”

Future historians will write of  the ignorance of the American electorate in the early 21st century and wonder at  their lack of reasoning. I sincerely doubt those future historians writing about  us will be Americans, however. By that time, the “American iron curtain” will  have fallen and we will be engulfed in the darkness of  communism.

My maternal grandmother had the ability to see short distances  into the future and make accurate predictions. Nothing was made of it. In our  family, it was something that was, well, just there. I grew up in an atmosphere  in which groping into the future, mostly with little success, was not uncommon  in our family. But, I sometimes think, a bit of my grandmother’s ability may  have been attached to my DNA. Frankly, I rather hope it has not.

If I remark that I have a bad feeling about something, my  family takes notice and plans accordingly. Me? I worry.

On one occasion, my family and I were going on a road trip. I  felt awful about it. Something was telling me, literally shouting in my mind “don’t go.” My wife was driving that day. A few blocks from home, I demanded  that she stop the car. She pulled over and I got out.

We had this protracted discussion at curbside as to why, I  didn’t want to go, and I could not give a reasonable answer -- except that  something was very wrong.

Finally, after a great deal of persuasion from both my wife  and my daughter, I got back in the car and we continued our road trip. About ten  miles down the hiway we had a head-on collision with a drunk driver attempting  to make a U-turn in front of us.

We were all belted but my passenger seat broke away from its  mount and my head crashed into the windshield smashing it (the windshield) and  giving me one heck of a headache.

The car was totaled.

The local hospital cleared us all with bruises, contusions,  and possibly a light concussion for yours truly.

That is just one example from many such, uh, “premonitions.” I  hasten to add that I believe all human beings have the ability to sense danger.  But it does seem to be more pronounced in some, for whatever reason.


True premonitions are rarely wrong. Science tells us that  premonitions are based on human emotions. That alone should cause us to question  them. But here’s the thing. Just being wrong once or twice causes one to wonder  WHEN is the feeling right—and -- WHEN is the feeling wrong. See the dilemma? It  will, most certainly, make a worrier of any person endowed (or cursed) with  them. It is, in my opinion, truly a curse.

No, I am not about to make a prediction! But I am  deeply worried/concerned about the coming Presidential Election -- and -- I am  about to issue a warning.

I am just as concerned about the coming Presidential Election  as I was over the auto wreck, I noted above. Those of us who live along  America’s southeastern coast know when the Coast Guard runs up the hurricane  warning flags, it is time to pay close attention and prepare for the coming  storm.

I fear for America. A storm is coming. Here’s why I  say that:

America is dangerously split. Our Congress is a very good  example of where the American people are at this moment in history – split,  divided. As a result, the election in November could just as easily swing one  way as it could the other. Many will disagree with me. I expect that, I respect  that, and I understand that.

The GOP has never gone up  against a candidate as devious, unscrupulous, and self-assured as Obama. Obama  is what I would call “neo-evil.” I do not think the Republicans are anywhere  near ready for that with which they are about to be  inundated.

Look. A man who will attack the Supreme Court in a  State of the Union Address – with the court sitting right in front of him, and  then issue thinly veiled threats at them, again, over the fifty-fifty chance  that his signature achievement – Obamacare – might be ruled unconstitutional -- is capable of doing whatever he feels is necessary to **noallow** a second term  as President.

Obama’s machine, and it is as  huge and powerful a political machine as this nation as ever seen (far exceeding  anything Romney and the Republicans can muster) has been at work since his first  election. They are dug-in in all 50 states just awaiting the word to begin  shredding the Republican nominee.

Obama has no problem comparing himself to Abraham  Lincoln, even Ronald Reagan when, in fact, he resembles Hugo Chavez in Venezuela  more than ANY past US President. Obama’s efforts within  his administration all seem to indicate that he is attempting to recreate a  Chavez regime here, in America.

A socialist is a person who has decided that  capitalism doesn’t work and is striving toward communism. Socialism is only the  middle phase between capitalism and communism. That middle phase is where Obama  is today and he is striving toward the latter -- and he intends to drag America  into the cesspool with him.

I am not going to predict that Obama will win in November. I  don’t think I need do that. I think just watching the campaign the next few  months will be all that is necessary to convince you that I am not just  whistling Dixie. Of course, by that time, it will be too late.

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative  Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep  passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of  America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in  "America First".· He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcastingbusiness, as an  "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and  newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US  Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of  Confederate Veterans.· A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old  Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.

Articles by J.D. Longstreet are  posted at: "INSIGHT on Freedom",· "Hurricane Alley... by Longstreet",· "The  Carolina Post" and numerous other conservative websites around the  web.·


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Great News: New Black Panthers  Call  to  Create "Red Sea" of "Bloodshed"

By Katie Pavlich 4/9/2012




The New Black Panther Party wants a race war and they  want  it  to start tomorrow. In an audio recording of a planning  meeting for a  Trayvon  Martin rally, New Black Panther Party members  have resorted to  violent action  for what they are calling  "revolution."

"We've got to suit of and boot up and get prepared for  the  war  we are in."

"True revolution means some    bloodshed."

"We're going to have to cause the red sea."

"I'm talking about that blonde haired, blue eyed,   sometimes  brown eyed, caucasion walking around."

"I am for violence."

"I'm pissed off right now that the state of Florida  isn't  on  fire."

"We've got to starve capitalism."

"We want the complete removal of  capitalism."





Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



Obama Advisor Attacks Cancer Survivor,  Mother, Grandmother Ann Romney

By Katie Pavlich 4/12/2012



There's a war on women going on alright. Last week, I predicted the Left's next attack  would land on Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney. Turns out I was right. Appearing  on Anderson Cooper 360 last night, DNC and Obama advisor Hilary Rosen claimed  Ann Romney had never "worked a day in her life," dismissing her work to raise  five healthy children. In case you're wondering, stay at home moms are worth at  least $500,000 per year.




The attack was predictible because Ann Romney is capable of  connecting to women on a very personal level. She's a breast cancer survivor,  lives with multiple sclerosis, raised five children, has 16 grandchildren and  has been happily and faithfully married to a successful businessman for 42  years. No wonder the Left sees her as a a threat, especially the feminist Left,  who have been pushing women away from and demonizing motherhood for decades. Not  to mention, Ann Romney is a fighter. She created a Twitter account last night to  respond to Rosen's attacks. Romney's son also jumped to defend his mom. Twitchy has more reaction.


Rosen implies Ann Romney isn't a qualified expert on women and  the economy, but somehow "inside the Beltway looking out" Rosen is qualified?  Please. Conservatives respect a woman's decision to choose a career, motherhood  or both. Liberal feminists on the other hand see choosing motherhood over a  career as a sin. Not to mention, maybe if liberals weren't always demonizing and  punishing success, raising children and having a career wouldn't be as hard as  they like to complain about. It is hard, but would be easier without liberal  policies holding women and families back.

Also, First Lady Michelle Obama has made  herself an "expert" by trying to reach out to military families when neither she  nor her husband Barack Obama ever served in the military. Where is Rosen on  that?


Más en Univision.com: href="http://foro.univision.com/t5/WQBA-1140-AM/OBAMA-S-WAR-ON-WOMEN-DESPICABLE-ATTACK-TO-ANN-ROMMEY...

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



The Democrats’ Fear of Romney’s Little  Housewife

By Arnold Ahlert On April 13, 2012 In Daily  Mailer,FrontPage


On Wednesday, when CNN’s Anderson Cooper noted that “women are  seeing jobs come back much more slowly than men are” and wondered whether there  was anything wrong with the Romney campaign reaching out to women on economic  issues, political strategist and mouthpiece for the Democratic Party  establishment Hilary Rosen couldn’t resist taking a shot at both Romneys. First  up was Ann. “Guess what?” said Rosen. “His wife has never worked a day in her  life” and therefore she was unqualified to champion women’s economic concerns.  Rosen hysterically linked this to Mitt being “so old-fashioned when it comes to  women” that “he doesn’t really see us as equals.”

Ms. Rosen doubled down on her derision Thursday when she  initially refused to apologize for her remark, even as she attempted to cover  herself by resorting to the Obama administration’s primary re-election strategy:  fomenting class warfare. “This is not about Ann Romney,” Rosen contended. “This  is about the waitress in a diner somewhere in Nevada who has two kids whose day  care funding is being cut off because of the Romney-Ryan budget and she doesn’t  know what to do…”

Leaving aside Rosen’s lunatic hyperbole, the faux pas, a  direct denigration of stay-at-home mothers, descended into a PR meltdown. In an  informal poll by the Washington Post asked whether Rosen was out of line because  raising a family is a lot of work, or if Ann Romney was out of touch with the  economic issues facing working women. 97 percent thought raising a family is a  lot of work.

So why take on Ann Romney? Because the 62-year-old mother of  five is considered a “wild card” by Obama strategists fearful that her winning  personality and command of the issues could sway millions of American women to  vote for her husband. They are equally worried she could “humanize” her husband,  who is often seen as cold and aloof.

Thus, it was no surprise that Mrs. Romney defended both  herself and her husband with a graceful ease that set her off from Rosen and a  Democratic Party that must stay in attack mode to deflect the election  conversation away from the Obama administration’s dismal record. “My career  choice was to be a mother,” Mrs Romney told Fox News. “And I think all of us  need to know that we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make  other choices to have a career and raise family, which I think Hilary Rosen has  actually done herself. I respect that, that’s wonderful. But you know, there are  other people that have a choice, we have to respect women in all those choices  that they make.”

And she was quick to defend her husband against charges of  inequality. “Now that bothers me,” she said, noting that her husband has had top  female advisors going back to his days as the governor of  Massachusetts.

She then took on the first of what will undoubtedly be  numerous attempts to portray both her and her husband as the out-of-touch  elitists Democrats and the Obama campaign need them to be. “I can tell you and  promise you that I’ve had struggles in my life,” she said. “And I would love to  have people understand that Mitt and I have compassion for people that are  struggling. That’s why we’re running,” she added. What struggles? Ann Romney is  a breast cancer survivor currently suffering from multiple sclerosis. Hilary  Rosen is undoubtedly aware of that as well, which makes her attack–in the “age  of civility” demanded by Democrats following the shooting of Gabrielle  Giffords–all the more unseemly.

It was an unseemliness that continued on Twitter following the  Fox interview. “I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don’t want Mitt using  her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t,” Rosen tweeted. She followed that with “@AnnDRomney Please know, I admire you.  But your husband shouldn’t say you are his expert on women and the  economy.”

By early yesterday afternoon, Rosen’s gaffe had reached  critical mass among Democrats, who apparently realized they had overplayed their  war on women strategy. “I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more  strongly,” tweeted Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. “Her comments were wrong  and family should be off limits. She should apologize.” Top Obama campaign  strategist David Axelrod echoed Messina. “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s  comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”

Not nearly as offensive as a pro-Obama Super PAC, Priorities  USA, keeping a one million dollar Obama campaign contribution from HBO host Bill  Maher, despite the fact that Maher referred to former vice presidential  candidate Sarah Palin as a “dumb twat” and a “c**t.” Axlerod was given the  chance by CNN host Erin Burnett to demand that Maher’s donation be returned. He  dodged the issue completely, even as he contended conservative radio host’s Rush  Limbaugh’s characterization of activist Sandra Fluke as a “slut” was a far more  egregious slur against women. Thus, Axlerod’s “disappointment” is disingenuous  at best.

Finally, late yesterday afternoon, Rosen herself apologized. ”I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended,” she said in  statement. “Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay at home moms’ to rest once and  for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a  pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen.”

A faux war? Rosen might want to alert the Democratic  Senatorial Campaign Committee. They’re running an online petition titled “Stop  the Republican War on Women!” She might want to alert Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as  well. In an online blast Wednesday by the Democratic Congressional Campaign  Committee (DCCC), Pelosi asked for donations in order “to send a clear message  that we will not tolerate or stand by while Republicans wage war on women’s  rights.”

It is a war they’ll have to wage with Ann Romney on the other  side. The quiet dignity she demonstrated in the midst of an unwarranted attack  suggests that she knows how to handle herself on the campaign trail. 42 years of  marriage to the same man suggests a stability and loyalty unlikely to be ruffled  by Democrats, no matter how hard they attack. They got their taste regarding her  depth of character yesterday.

It won’t be their last.