Yeah, but the appropriate response should have been to clarify what she meant. The actual point she was trying to make is a strong one. Instead, we got the administration saying that she should apologize and Obama saying that stay-at-home mom is the toughest job in the world. I expect the right to completely misrepresent what she was trying to say. I would have hoped better of the left.
Look how many words you're using. Now compare that to the right's talking point of, "She's anti-moms!"
Who wins the soundbite war?
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
If it was me, I would've said something like "The full statement should have made it clear that Ms. Rosen was in fact referring to work outside the home. As a mother herself, it is a stretch to feel that she is implying motherhood is not a job itself. She was merely stating that for many moms out there they, unfortunately, do not have the luxury of being able to choose whether or not to work a 9 to 5 job as well. While in no way does this diminish women who do have this option, it is unfair to say that they automatically 'know' what other women go through. If the media took the time to give full disclosure on Ms. Rosen's statements instead of grabbing soundbytes perhaps we could focus on more important issues including, but not limited to, the state of women in America's economy."
Yeah, but the appropriate response should have been to clarify what she meant. The actual point she was trying to make is a strong one. Instead, we got the administration saying that she should apologize and Obama saying that stay-at-home mom is the toughest job in the world. I expect the right to completely misrepresent what she was trying to say. I would have hoped better of the left.
Look how many words you're using. Now compare that to the right's talking point of, "She's anti-moms!"
Who wins the soundbite war?
"Ann Romney has 250 million reasons why she doesn't understand what working parents deal with. "
Short, simple, and makes the point that the issue is wealth disparity.
Yeah she forgot that as a Democrat she's a proxy for Obama and anything she says can be taken out of context and run on Fox all day for a week
No, she forgot that running counter to an argument your side has been arguing for decades is not going to end well. And if you can't say everything you need to say in a tweet, then don't tweet.
She only ran counter to an argument her side has been arguing for decades if you completely remove all context from her statement.
Which, by her choice of venue, Rosen happily did. Seriously, she knows how the game is played. She should have known better.
Yeah, but the appropriate response should have been to clarify what she meant. The actual point she was trying to make is a strong one. Instead, we got the administration saying that she should apologize and Obama saying that stay-at-home mom is the toughest job in the world. I expect the right to completely misrepresent what she was trying to say. I would have hoped better of the left.
She is a nobody.
Throwing her under the bus doesn't hurt/tarnish/damage any politican.
Team Obama made the correct call.
Not using this as an opportunity to drive home the point that the Romney's are so filthy rich that they can't be trusted to understand what average people worry about isn't the right call. Enthusiastically handing Romney a political win on any woman's issue isn't the right call.
Yeah, but the appropriate response should have been to clarify what she meant. The actual point she was trying to make is a strong one. Instead, we got the administration saying that she should apologize and Obama saying that stay-at-home mom is the toughest job in the world. I expect the right to completely misrepresent what she was trying to say. I would have hoped better of the left.
Look how many words you're using. Now compare that to the right's talking point of, "She's anti-moms!"
Who wins the soundbite war?
"Ann Romney has 250 million reasons why she doesn't understand what working parents deal with. "
Short, simple, and makes the point that the issue is wealth disparity.
I'm not so sure. Trying correlate wealth with the ease of raising children seems like a giant boondoggle to me. (And a waste of time) But then, I'm not the type that thinks someone should be lionized because they made a decision to raise a couple of kids either. Or that it somehow lends their political arguments more weight, which is what Romney's original statement was implying.
Yeah she forgot that as a Democrat she's a proxy for Obama and anything she says can be taken out of context and run on Fox all day for a week
No, she forgot that running counter to an argument your side has been arguing for decades is not going to end well. And if you can't say everything you need to say in a tweet, then don't tweet.
She only ran counter to an argument her side has been arguing for decades if you completely remove all context from her statement.
Which, by her choice of venue, Rosen happily did. Seriously, she knows how the game is played. She should have known better.
Yeah, but the appropriate response should have been to clarify what she meant. The actual point she was trying to make is a strong one. Instead, we got the administration saying that she should apologize and Obama saying that stay-at-home mom is the toughest job in the world. I expect the right to completely misrepresent what she was trying to say. I would have hoped better of the left.
She is a nobody.
Throwing her under the bus doesn't hurt/tarnish/damage any politican.
Team Obama made the correct call.
Not using this as an opportunity to drive home the point that the Romney's are so filthy rich that they can't be trusted to understand what average people worry about isn't the right call. Enthusiastically handing Romney a political win on any woman's issue isn't the right call.
And by throwing her under the bus, Obama ensured that Romney didn't get a win on womens issues.
If he didn't throw her under the bus, the right would be hitting Obama as being anti-mom all over the place. By distancing himself from her coments, he shows that he isn't anti-mom.
You can't treat this as something that is worth fighting over. When Colbert runs a montage of everybody on FOX saying she's anti-moms you're not going to win this one. They already boiled the story down into an easily digestible lie and then repeated it till it became the truth. It's not worth the political capital to try to change the conversation.
You're basically talking about trying to be reasonable with people who think that explaining things in a nuanced fashion is a sign of backpedaling, being weak, or both.
I feel like wading into the argument was a misstep on Obama's part. He's the f'n president, he's got better things to be doing than wading around in the muck appeasing right wing pundits.
Yeah she forgot that as a Democrat she's a proxy for Obama and anything she says can be taken out of context and run on Fox all day for a week
No, she forgot that running counter to an argument your side has been arguing for decades is not going to end well. And if you can't say everything you need to say in a tweet, then don't tweet.
She only ran counter to an argument her side has been arguing for decades if you completely remove all context from her statement.
Which, by her choice of venue, Rosen happily did. Seriously, she knows how the game is played. She should have known better.
Yeah, but the appropriate response should have been to clarify what she meant. The actual point she was trying to make is a strong one. Instead, we got the administration saying that she should apologize and Obama saying that stay-at-home mom is the toughest job in the world. I expect the right to completely misrepresent what she was trying to say. I would have hoped better of the left.
She is a nobody.
Throwing her under the bus doesn't hurt/tarnish/damage any politican.
Team Obama made the correct call.
Not using this as an opportunity to drive home the point that the Romney's are so filthy rich that they can't be trusted to understand what average people worry about isn't the right call. Enthusiastically handing Romney a political win on any woman's issue isn't the right call.
And by throwing her under the bus, Obama ensured that Romney didn't get a win on womens issues.
If he didn't throw her under the bus, the right would be hitting Obama as being anti-mom all over the place. By distancing himself from her coments, he shows that he isn't anti-mom.
Still think they made the right call.
If you really think your first sentence is reflective of reality, I'll have to bet to differ. The only way to come out of this without a loss was to turn this conversation back to both Mitt & Ann Romney being completely out of touch. By not clarifying that Rosen's statement wasn't anti-mom, and instead reinforce the idea that it was, you keep the talking point of a DNC consultant being anti-mom. And through guilt by association, Obama is anti-mom regardless of how hard and fast they run away from this. This is just another example of Democrats absolutely feeble control over the narrative.
If you really think your first sentence is reflective of reality, I'll have to bet to differ. The only way to come out of this without a loss was to turn this conversation back to both Mitt & Ann Romney being completely out of touch. By not clarifying that Rosen's statement wasn't anti-mom, and instead reinforce the idea that it was, you keep the talking point of a DNC consultant being anti-mom. And through guilt by association, Obama is anti-mom regardless of how hard and fast they run away from this. This is just another example of Democrats absolutely feeble control over the narrative.
You keep saying this. Please boil down that argument into something as short as "She's anti-moms!" to show how they'd regain the narrative.
Yeah she forgot that as a Democrat she's a proxy for Obama and anything she says can be taken out of context and run on Fox all day for a week
No, she forgot that running counter to an argument your side has been arguing for decades is not going to end well. And if you can't say everything you need to say in a tweet, then don't tweet.
She only ran counter to an argument her side has been arguing for decades if you completely remove all context from her statement.
Which, by her choice of venue, Rosen happily did. Seriously, she knows how the game is played. She should have known better.
Yeah, but the appropriate response should have been to clarify what she meant. The actual point she was trying to make is a strong one. Instead, we got the administration saying that she should apologize and Obama saying that stay-at-home mom is the toughest job in the world. I expect the right to completely misrepresent what she was trying to say. I would have hoped better of the left.
She is a nobody.
Throwing her under the bus doesn't hurt/tarnish/damage any politican.
Team Obama made the correct call.
Not using this as an opportunity to drive home the point that the Romney's are so filthy rich that they can't be trusted to understand what average people worry about isn't the right call. Enthusiastically handing Romney a political win on any woman's issue isn't the right call.
Rosen's comment left too many blanks that needed filling. Which is a cardinal sin in politics. If Rosen wanted to drive home the point that the wealth of Clan Romney insulates them from the realities we deal with, she should have put that right up front. Instead, she left it to insinuation, which is a big mistake.
If you really think your first sentence is reflective of reality, I'll have to bet to differ. The only way to come out of this without a loss was to turn this conversation back to both Mitt & Ann Romney being completely out of touch. By not clarifying that Rosen's statement wasn't anti-mom, and instead reinforce the idea that it was, you keep the talking point of a DNC consultant being anti-mom. And through guilt by association, Obama is anti-mom regardless of how hard and fast they run away from this. This is just another example of Democrats absolutely feeble control over the narrative.
You keep saying this. Please boil down that argument into something as short as "She's anti-moms!" to show how they'd regain the narrative.
Well, now it's too late because they helped entrench that narrative. And just because you're position can't be squeezed onto a smaller bumper sticker doesn't mean it's an impossible case to make. By your logic they can't really fight "He's a musilm!" or "OMG Socialism!" or "Gas is too expensive!" either.
Well, now it's too late because they helped entrench that narrative. And just because you're position can't be squeezed onto a smaller bumper sticker doesn't mean it's an impossible case to make. By your logic they can't really fight "He's a musilm!" or "OMG Socialism!" or "Gas is too expensive!" either.
What entrenched the narrative was FOX having every woman on their network trot out those words then interview black people who disagreed with the tweet, too. The only way to successfully combat that would be having a liberal news network that ran a reverse smear campaign and there isn't one.
In a better world what you're proposing would make sense. In actual reality it doesn't work.
Well, now it's too late because they helped entrench that narrative. And just because you're position can't be squeezed onto a smaller bumper sticker doesn't mean it's an impossible case to make. By your logic they can't really fight "He's a musilm!" or "OMG Socialism!" or "Gas is too expensive!" either.
What entrenched the narrative was FOX having every woman on their network trot out those words then interview black people who disagreed with the tweet, too. The only way to successfully combat that would be having a liberal news network that ran a reverse smear campaign and there isn't one.
In a better world what you're proposing would make sense. In actual reality it doesn't work.
Ok, I'm starting to sound like I think this whole fiasco is hugely important, but I don't. This will all blow over and be a long forgotten distant memory by the time November rolls around (or May for that matter). But what you're literally saying is that since the Right is better at messaging and narrative control, that it's foolish for the Left to try to fight back. Look, all it would have taken was Rosen coming right back to Ann Romney's tweet with something like "I'm a mom too, I know how much work it is. But I also know what it is to worry about putting food on the table." You'd still have FOX trotting out a cavalcade of idiots screaming that she, and by extension Obama, are anti-mom. But at least you'd have a message that the more reasonable people listening (whom are the only ones you care about in situations like this) could weigh against them. Instead, FOX could have just as easily trotted out members of the administration to reinforce their anti-mom narrative.
Ok, I'm starting to sound like I think this whole fiasco is hugely important, but I don't. This will all blow over and be a long forgotten distant memory by the time November rolls around (or May for that matter). But what you're literally saying is that since the Right is better at messaging and narrative control, that it's foolish for the Left to try to fight back.
I'm saying it's foolish to fight back on this issue.
FOX is so hungry for something anti-Obama that the marching orders jammed this thing through before it could be fought. After it became the "Anti-mom!" cavalcade the people who want to believe it already are and the ones who weren't sure will wonder why the left has to use so many more words explaining why it isn't true if there wasn't some truth to it.
@TheCanMan, remember a sizable chunk of the voting population is ill informed and too fucking lazy to do much in the way of research. I don't like that the dems had to throw Rosen under the bus, but the way she worded her comment made it too easy for the Fauxnews and the GOP to boil the message down to "she's anti-mom." Given that a sizable chunk of the population will eat up, or at least buy, that pile of shit without question. It's more feasible to throw Rosen under the bus, ensuring that the anti-mom thing doesn't stick; hopefully, getting it out of the news quicker as well.
Rosen should have thought this through better. As damning as "didn't work a day in her life," it's still too easy to turn that into an attack on motherhood, even if the comment is true. It's also a soundbite that can be easily taken out of context to make Rosen sound like she is anti-mom and we all know the right was going to do that. "Anne Romney has 250 million reasons why she can't relate to the average mother," would have worked better, sure it's not a great soundbite nor as damning as "didn't work a day in her life," but it can't be taken out of context and the Romney's never fail at digging their own grave with verbal gaffes.
Uh, the argument that Romney wants to outlaw abortion is based on everything he's said since pursuing the nomination in 2008, as well as the GOP platform. They want abortion to be illegal except in some cases. This is not a controversial or incorrect statement, except insofar as it implies Romney has any belief fundamental to his being.
I thought Romney was a blank slate now that the focus has shifted to the general election?
Turns out someone opened the back of the Etch-A-Sketch and took out all the powder.
It's like that deleted scene from Terminator 2 where they take out Arnold's brain chip and switch it to from "Read only" to "Read/Write", except in reverse.
Yeah she forgot that as a Democrat she's a proxy for Obama and anything she says can be taken out of context and run on Fox all day for a week
No, she forgot that running counter to an argument your side has been arguing for decades is not going to end well. And if you can't say everything you need to say in a tweet, then don't tweet.
It wasn't a tweet, it was an interview on CNN.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
You know, I'm pretty sure there actually are some job that are tougher than being a mom. What about someone who fights crime as a superhero, and in his alternate identity he's, like, a coal miner? I'll bet that's tougher than being a mom.
Or being President. That's also probably tougher than being a mom.
You know, I'm pretty sure there actually are some job that are tougher than being a mom. What about someone who fights crime as a superhero, and in his alternate identity he's, like, a coal miner? I'll bet that's tougher than being a mom.
Or being President. That's also probably tougher than being a mom.
I think a large part of this is to attempt by our society to sidestep the fact that people doing child-rearing don't get paid.
"Oh yeah sure you're an unpaid intern but you're really the most important wiiink".
Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod suggested Thursday that the Romney campaign jumped on Hilary Rosen's comments "like a raft in the deep blue sea" as they drown in "their own problems."
I wonder, who exactly should be paying a stay-at-home parent anyway?
Sometimes they'll do a workup of "all the things a mother does" and if it was on the open market it'd be over $200k to have someone do it for you...
You know, I'm pretty sure there actually are some job that are tougher than being a mom. What about someone who fights crime as a superhero, and in his alternate identity he's, like, a coal miner? I'll bet that's tougher than being a mom.
Or being President. That's also probably tougher than being a mom.
And it goes without saying that a coal mining superhero isn't as tough a job as a coal mining superhero who is also the middle link in a human centipede.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Santorum campaign supporter who now supports Romney says the damndest thing:
Also, while we sure do economically devalue domestic work, at the same time stay-at-home-mom is a job that you do not have to apply for and you can not get fired from*. So it still gives you little to no personal experience with work out in the "real" economy.
* - I mean, aside from serious abuse/neglect issues. But a venture capital firm is unlikely to reprioritize your revenue stream, or whatevs.
I think he's going to find out how much of a sense of humor the Secret Service has.
I'll bet 20k e-bucks that less comes out of this than the "Obama's administrations denunciation of mothers and their families".
Also they really should stay away from the whole shooting people as a "metaphor" thing. That map Sarah Palin made was bad enough, but they still haven't backed away from the language even after people were shot and killed.
I'm not so sure. Trying correlate wealth with the ease of raising children seems like a giant boondoggle to me. (And a waste of time) But then, I'm not the type that thinks someone should be lionized because they made a decision to raise a couple of kids either. Or that it somehow lends their political arguments more weight, which is what Romney's original statement was implying.
Not really, generally it is easier to raise kids when you have a lot of money than it is when you don't have a lot of money. The money allows you more choices. I'm not saying that raising kids is easy when you have money, I'm saying that you have choices that can make it easier. Now raising kids is important, and if a family can afford to have one parent stay home and watch the kids or work part time, then they should do it. The kids do better that way. I do think however that there is only a few issues that can benefit from exclusively a parents perspective in terms of politics.
I think he's going to find out how much of a sense of humor the Secret Service has.
I'll bet 20k e-bucks that less comes out of this than the "Obama's administrations denunciation of mothers and their families".
Also they really should stay away from the whole shooting people as a "metaphor" thing. That map Sarah Palin made was bad enough, but they still haven't backed away from the language even after people were shot and killed.
'they' being a random dude that has as much of a tie to Romney as Rosen does to Obama.
Posts
Look how many words you're using. Now compare that to the right's talking point of, "She's anti-moms!"
Who wins the soundbite war?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
"Ann Romney has 250 million reasons why she doesn't understand what working parents deal with. "
Short, simple, and makes the point that the issue is wealth disparity.
Not using this as an opportunity to drive home the point that the Romney's are so filthy rich that they can't be trusted to understand what average people worry about isn't the right call. Enthusiastically handing Romney a political win on any woman's issue isn't the right call.
I'm not so sure. Trying correlate wealth with the ease of raising children seems like a giant boondoggle to me. (And a waste of time) But then, I'm not the type that thinks someone should be lionized because they made a decision to raise a couple of kids either. Or that it somehow lends their political arguments more weight, which is what Romney's original statement was implying.
And by throwing her under the bus, Obama ensured that Romney didn't get a win on womens issues.
If he didn't throw her under the bus, the right would be hitting Obama as being anti-mom all over the place. By distancing himself from her coments, he shows that he isn't anti-mom.
Still think they made the right call.
You're basically talking about trying to be reasonable with people who think that explaining things in a nuanced fashion is a sign of backpedaling, being weak, or both.
If you really think your first sentence is reflective of reality, I'll have to bet to differ. The only way to come out of this without a loss was to turn this conversation back to both Mitt & Ann Romney being completely out of touch. By not clarifying that Rosen's statement wasn't anti-mom, and instead reinforce the idea that it was, you keep the talking point of a DNC consultant being anti-mom. And through guilt by association, Obama is anti-mom regardless of how hard and fast they run away from this. This is just another example of Democrats absolutely feeble control over the narrative.
You keep saying this. Please boil down that argument into something as short as "She's anti-moms!" to show how they'd regain the narrative.
Rosen's comment left too many blanks that needed filling. Which is a cardinal sin in politics. If Rosen wanted to drive home the point that the wealth of Clan Romney insulates them from the realities we deal with, she should have put that right up front. Instead, she left it to insinuation, which is a big mistake.
Well, now it's too late because they helped entrench that narrative. And just because you're position can't be squeezed onto a smaller bumper sticker doesn't mean it's an impossible case to make. By your logic they can't really fight "He's a musilm!" or "OMG Socialism!" or "Gas is too expensive!" either.
What entrenched the narrative was FOX having every woman on their network trot out those words then interview black people who disagreed with the tweet, too. The only way to successfully combat that would be having a liberal news network that ran a reverse smear campaign and there isn't one.
In a better world what you're proposing would make sense. In actual reality it doesn't work.
Ok, I'm starting to sound like I think this whole fiasco is hugely important, but I don't. This will all blow over and be a long forgotten distant memory by the time November rolls around (or May for that matter). But what you're literally saying is that since the Right is better at messaging and narrative control, that it's foolish for the Left to try to fight back. Look, all it would have taken was Rosen coming right back to Ann Romney's tweet with something like "I'm a mom too, I know how much work it is. But I also know what it is to worry about putting food on the table." You'd still have FOX trotting out a cavalcade of idiots screaming that she, and by extension Obama, are anti-mom. But at least you'd have a message that the more reasonable people listening (whom are the only ones you care about in situations like this) could weigh against them. Instead, FOX could have just as easily trotted out members of the administration to reinforce their anti-mom narrative.
I'm saying it's foolish to fight back on this issue.
FOX is so hungry for something anti-Obama that the marching orders jammed this thing through before it could be fought. After it became the "Anti-mom!" cavalcade the people who want to believe it already are and the ones who weren't sure will wonder why the left has to use so many more words explaining why it isn't true if there wasn't some truth to it.
Rosen should have thought this through better. As damning as "didn't work a day in her life," it's still too easy to turn that into an attack on motherhood, even if the comment is true. It's also a soundbite that can be easily taken out of context to make Rosen sound like she is anti-mom and we all know the right was going to do that. "Anne Romney has 250 million reasons why she can't relate to the average mother," would have worked better, sure it's not a great soundbite nor as damning as "didn't work a day in her life," but it can't be taken out of context and the Romney's never fail at digging their own grave with verbal gaffes.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Turns out someone opened the back of the Etch-A-Sketch and took out all the powder.
It's like that deleted scene from Terminator 2 where they take out Arnold's brain chip and switch it to from "Read only" to "Read/Write", except in reverse.
It wasn't a tweet, it was an interview on CNN.
You know, I'm pretty sure there actually are some job that are tougher than being a mom. What about someone who fights crime as a superhero, and in his alternate identity he's, like, a coal miner? I'll bet that's tougher than being a mom.
Or being President. That's also probably tougher than being a mom.
I think a large part of this is to attempt by our society to sidestep the fact that people doing child-rearing don't get paid.
"Oh yeah sure you're an unpaid intern but you're really the most important wiiink".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/12/1082908/-Ann-Romney-still-owes-my-Mom-and-my-Dad-an-apology-
I agree whole-heartedly.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I wonder, who exactly should be paying a stay-at-home parent anyway?
Sometimes they'll do a workup of "all the things a mother does" and if it was on the open market it'd be over $200k to have someone do it for you...
And it goes without saying that a coal mining superhero isn't as tough a job as a coal mining superhero who is also the middle link in a human centipede.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/13/1082962/-Romney-Backer-Says-he-Hopes-Obama-s-Teleprompters-are-Bulletproof-
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I think he's going to find out how much of a sense of humor the Secret Service has.
Yup. No actual power, just one of those four billion people who work as "[Party] strategist" for the cable nets.
Also, while we sure do economically devalue domestic work, at the same time stay-at-home-mom is a job that you do not have to apply for and you can not get fired from*. So it still gives you little to no personal experience with work out in the "real" economy.
* - I mean, aside from serious abuse/neglect issues. But a venture capital firm is unlikely to reprioritize your revenue stream, or whatevs.
I'll bet 20k e-bucks that less comes out of this than the "Obama's administrations denunciation of mothers and their families".
Also they really should stay away from the whole shooting people as a "metaphor" thing. That map Sarah Palin made was bad enough, but they still haven't backed away from the language even after people were shot and killed.
I thought she was some kind of consultant for the DNC?
'they' being a random dude that has as much of a tie to Romney as Rosen does to Obama.
aka none.