Piggyback on the Rosen Apology Request Earlier

Ok. I will be the objective one here. Rosen's point was: Romney should not be using his wife as an advisor on women's economic issues since she has never been in the role of a career woman. Right or wrong - that was her point.

When the subject of 'economics' is mentioned it does coincide with 'working'. Thus Rosen's comment. To her point, since Romney has always been a SAHM, Rosen feels she is not an expert on women's economic concerns. Again, right or wrong that was her point. Remember she said 'women's' economic concerns, not economic concerns - big difference.

I said I was the objective one here b/c I am in no way affected by the statement. I don't know Rosen, so her point of view means nothing to me. I don't know Romney and really, whether she worked or not, has no bearings on my life either. I also realize, Mitt put his wife in the spotlight b/c of his statement, she didn't offer her opinion up for discussion.

Personally, I think the Romney's are completely out of touch with the common man's (meaning both men & women) economic concerns b/c they have never been the common man. Each of his parents struggled growing up but as married adults they were very successful financially. So this whole women's economic debacle w/ Rosen & Romney - really means nothing.

What I don't understand is how Rosen defends her comment that a working mom is more aware of economic issues. Who is more concerned with the economy, the waitress in Nevada who is worried about potential cuts to her child care supplements or the stay at home mom who's husband's hours were cut but she cannot go back to work because they can't afford the day care.

I would say both are.

I get that Rosen tried to target the anger of working moms against the Romney statement. The problem is, in spite of looking at some of the debates here, women will unite. Oops When you look at the naked truth of what she said, she not only said that stay at home moms have no say but neither do married working moms, only single moms and apparently only those that get child care subsidies understand what is going on.

So if you are a stay at home, you don't work, you can't talk. If you are a working mom who is married, your income is gravy so you can't talk. If you are a single mom that pays for your child care you can't talk because clearly you are doing well. As a women, that just doesn't seem right.

My biggest concern is the unsustainablity of the debt we are amassing. :(

My biggest concern is that our government is bought and paid for, and we never see, much less vote for the persons who actually call the shots.

But I generally agree with your point.

My biggest concern isn't the economy, but that aside, what Rosen said was offensive. And that's coming from a left-leaning, "working" Mom (the quotes are because I know SAHMs are still working Moms)

I am tried of pundits trying to get us to fight with each other.

When treated with care and respect, most people can find common ground.

it's certainly one of my top concerns. i'm not sure health care doesn't equal or top it, though. and afghanistan isn't in my face every day, so i have to remind myself that we still have people dying over there.
i think rosen was extremely careless and dismissive in her statements, and her apology was the usual pundit-flavored non-apology. blick.
that being said, mitt is clueless, and so is ann. i'm sorry, a woman whose husband bought her a 100K dressage horse that SOMEBODY ELSE rides and shows for her doesn't really get the terror that grips women who aren't sure they can afford food for their kids, or who weigh groceries against a doctor visit for a sore throat (because having an insurance company drone whose bonus relies on denying your claim is somehow vastly superior to having the gummint 'stand between you and your doctor'. but i rant.)
i don't think it's okay to drag candidates' families into the fray against their will. but mitt actually dragged her into this one.
rosen didn't need to descend to mudwrestling, though.
khairete
S.

Just my opinion here, but what Rosen should have said was Ann Romney has never wanted for a single necessity in her life. The Romney's have always had money, they have never had to choose between which utility to pay, food, medicine, rent, or clothes for a growing child. She probably thinks that all generic food tastes like the name brands because she has never had to buy groceries based on the price or say no when one of her children wanted something because there was no money to pay for any extras. I am not saying it is bad to be wealthy - given the choice, who would choose poverty? - just that the amount of wealth that they have has caused a major disconnect with the problems experienced by the vast majority of Americans today.
And, yes the economy is the major issue in the election, just like it has been for a while. Yet, even though politicians have run on the platform of fixing the economy, the state ones spent less time on fiscal matters than they did on moral ones during the last session.

I think there are quite a few excellent comments on here that basically cover what I would say but I do want to say this: "THANK YOU to everyone who has responded to this question! Your responses have been rational, thought out and polite!" This is the 1st question of this type that I have seen where some nitwit didn't go off a deep end and get people off topic and sniping at each other. Honest, open discussion with regard to others POVs - THIS is what our politicians should be doing!!!! Thank you again.

Look at it this way, a woman who has never worked to provide financially for her family, nor had to worry about her husband bringing home a big-enough paycheck to cover their expenses, is probably NOT a good "model" for women's economic issues. I'll respect her opinion when she can show me she can feed a family of 4 on $100 per week!
I'm sure she's a nice lady, and she's a lot more "real" and "relaxed" than her robot husband, but although she is a good mother and, yes, we all know that raising kids is the hardest job on the planet...I really marvel at the fact that anyone, including Mitt, could feel that she has a finger on the pulse of what economic issues are relevant or important to Mrs. AnyUSAWoman.
I'm quite sure she hasn't had to worry about paying a bill, getting to work on time, the rising cost of feeding her family, or funding college funds a day in her life.
Seriously, if anyone is at fault here, it's Mitten, for trying to pass of his millionaire wife as Every Woman. I don't think anyone is buying that.

As for the statement economy being the most important issue for women in this election....duh!....isn't that kind of EVERYONE's biggest issue in this election?

I think the main point was that how can a woman in Mrs. Romney's position know what it's all about trying to get a job in this economy. It's like how do the people in higher paid positions know what it's like to be on welfare? Or better yet how does a white male know what it's like to be a black female? Apples to oranges.

At any rate...we all know this economy sucks and the wrong people are making the decision for those in "lower classes". Politicians don't know what it's like to to be turned away from doctors for lack of insurance. They don't know what it's like to struggle for gas money because someone else fills their tanks and drives them everywhere. They don't know what it's like to file for unemployment or fill out a welfare application. They don't know what it's like to have $10 in their pocket and make it last until next week. And they sure as heck don't know why they have 3 college degrees and still can't find work or that's during daycare hours.

We need to have more "real" people making decisions to get the economy back on track.

Yes, without a doubt, my biggest issue is the state of the economy and how it affects the stability of my job, and my ability to provide for my family.

ETA - just a reminder for people like Dana that not all working moms bring in the second income. Mine is the first and only in our house. Even when my husband was working, mine was the major income. Don't know why I felt I had to point this out!

I think it's a big one and defiantly one that crosses the SAHM and WM barrier. For SAHM their soul income is the husband if the job goes poof they are really out of luck. Same for WM's, most of the time the families NEED the second income so if either of them looses their job, then things get ugly fast. Alot of jobs offer insurance, so no job no insurance. It's all a huge mess.

I generally agree though I think my biggest concern is maybe more a subset of the overall economy. My biggest concern is the boatload of debt we're going to leave to our children if we don't clean up our fiscal house.

As always there are far more things that I am personally looking at with this election above and beyond the economy. My life and this country and the world are far more than just that one thing. Yes it is important but it isn't the only thing I'm thinking about or looking at.

Economy and the lack there of, lies directly under who makes the most off who wins the Presidency. Get yourself a good wheelbarrow, cause your gonna need it in a few years to haul your paper money to the local store to buy a gallon of milk. Forget driving, since no one will afford gas. Dont think it will matter who is in office then.

Its the economy or lack there of. That is what I am focusing on. Among other things but yep its a biggie!