¿Quién es Mitt Romney?
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.
Publicado: 04-02-2012 07:30 PM
MAS SHAME ABOUT ROMNEY:
Mitt Romney No Tiene Vergüenza | Mitt Romney Has No Shame
Ad script in Spanish
(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"
|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"
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
Publicado: 04-02-2012 07:32 PM
[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.
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.
Publicado: 04-03-2012 12:07 PM
OBAMA Y LA DICTADURA MARXISTA
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.
Publicado: 04-04-2012 01:22 PM
A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution
April 3, 2012
By Frank Salvato
PAINTING OBAMA TRAMPLING ON THE CONSTITUTION
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.
Publicado: 04-04-2012 09:16 PM
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.·
Publicado: 04-09-2012 09:46 AM
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."
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER SUPPORTS THE BLACK PANTHERS THUGS WHO INTIMIDATED WHITE VOTERS DURING THE ELECTION THAT GAVE OBAMA BY WHITE HOUSE BY BLANTANT FRAUD.
OBAMA DESATÓ Y DIO RIENDAS SUELTAS AL ODIO RACIAL.... ESTE ES EL RESULTADO... SOBRE OBAMA CAERA LA SANGRE QUE DERRAMEN LAS TURBAS QUE OBAMA INCITÓ A LA VIOLENCIA.
Publicado: 04-09-2012 12:41 PM
OBAMA'S WAR ON WOMEN, DESPICABLE ATTACK ON MRS. ROMMEY
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?
Publicado: 04-12-2012 11:14 AM
OBAMA’S WAR AGAINST MOTHERHOOD - HE FEARS MRS ROMMEY
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.
Publicado: 04-13-2012 09:24 AM