One of my colleagues here at The Rachel Maddow Show reminded me this afternoon of comments President Obama made to Associated Press last week about the false-equivalence fallacy. Obama said, "I think that there is often times the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented -- which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally."
Given the political uproar of the day, it seems like a good time to revisit the subject.
Mitt Romney was losing the so-called "war on women. Badly. Until Democratic operative Hilary Rosen appeared on CNN Wednesday night and seemingly derided his wife's decision to stay at home and raise the couple's five boys.
What much of the political world seems to be saying today is that the "war on women" now has two competing counterweights.
One the one hand, we have a party that has pushed for restricting contraception; cutting off Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically-unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds; forcing physicians to lie to patients about abortion and breast cancer; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; trap laws at abortion clinics, forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, opposition to prenatal care, and measures that make it harder for women to fight pay discrimination.
On the other hand, we have a media pundit with no connection to her party's presidential campaign who said something about Mitt Romney's wife professional background.
Don't you see? Both sides clearly have a problem here. Republicans were losing the "war on women," but not anymore.
Let's pause to appreciate the differences between policy and politics. A public policy offensive involving women's health, waged at the local, state, and federal level is a serious development, worthy of scrutiny. It affects people in direct and personal ways.
This is not to say rhetoric is irrelevant -- I'd be the first to argue that Rush Limbaugh's multi-day tirades targeting Sandra Fluke mattered -- but to obscure the differences a national policy initiative and a 30-second soundbite on CNN, which the pundit has since apologized for, is take the false-equivalence fallacy to depths that simply aren't healthy for our public discourse.
Leave a Comment:
Because one woman allegedly disobeyed, women have been devalued for thousands of years. How very convenient.
and how TYPICAL.
Few of us American citizens seem to have a good working knowledge of fallacious arguments. This should be considered a failure of our educational system.
List of Fallacies [Wikipedia]
Skeptic's Top 20 List of Logical Fallacies
The issue lies in the rise of testing as the mark of proficiency, rather than production and discourse-- which take longer to test, involve evaluation by humans and are subject to bias...etc.
Never mind that that the test writers were also bias, and not all that smart.
The sides certainly aren't equal, but Rosen's comment WAS dumb, and even offensive. I'm glad she apologized. It's too bad the right will never apologize for its far MORE offensive and destructive dogma.
Seriously? Mrs Romney may be a fine mother but she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and has never and I mean NEVER had to work or worry about feeding her children like so many women in this country who incidentally do both.
If this causes them to clutch their pearls and head for the fainting couch they are all pretty lame. You and I both know it was only political opportunism that sparked the outrage.
Kathleen D. Gunnell Saadat Ms Rosen's statement is characterized as inappropriate as the candidates family is "off limits". So I need help in understanding the logic... It is fine for Mr Romney to bring his wife and her opinions into the discourse (as he has been doing to try and close the "gender gap")... but then, no one is to comment on her or her opinions? I repeat, her husband has been holding her up and quoting her to demonstrate his connection to the broad group, "women" using her as an example of average womanhood. Maybe I am a "dirty" fighter but I think it important that someone say she is not. (Yes, she has raised five children and that is work. I wish all women could raise their children with the resources she has.) Her husband brought her into the conversation and she is a willing participant. If she wants the "safety" of not being a target, I think she and her husband should not use her as the voice of the average woman. ?
You are absolutely correct ..He brought her into the fight.
I think most "Average" women don't have 5 houses and 2 Cadillacs.
Mitt if you want to hold up an "Average " why don't you find one .
I disagree. The only thing Hilary Rosen did that was wrong was to apologize. She was perfectly within her rights to comment, and the content of her remarks was right on. There's a difference between raising kids and running a household when you have a loads of bucks and a coterie of household help, versus doing that with too little money and too little time.
The Democrats need to dismiss the faux outrage out of hand.
And here's a note to Republicans: you're still waging a war on women's rights, you're not going to create an equivalency here, and you're going to be on the wrong side of a big gender gap in November.
Rosens remark was 'inartful". She should have taken a page from Jon Stewart, and delivered a witty comment that would have gone viral on You Tube.
Sick-n-effin-tired is on the right track; 5 houses and 2 Cadillacs.
One idly wonders just how much household staff those 5 houses require. . .
I'm disappointed in the WH because they have bought into the false meme put forward about Rosen's actual remarks. The should be called out for lying and making things up.
Mrs. Romney has never worked outside the home. That a true fact. But the RWNJ's are going bonkers over that because they can't stand facts. So they make up a meme that Dems don't like housewives. That's a lie.
One does wonder how many nannies, cooks, house maids, etc. that Ann Romney had to help her. She in no way represents the struggles of average mothers, many of whom now do not even have a husband to bring home the bacon and the diapers.
Any politician who does not support economic policies that make it possible for a man to make a living for himself and his family without having his wife have to go to work, does not value motherhood and family.
A big chunk of the Republican strategy for winning elections is to make you stay home so they don't have to bother actively trying to suppress your vote. If you're low-info enough to believe this false-equivalency, and you don't know who's telling the truth, maybe you won't vote.
Democrats with mouths sure are retarded sometimes.. The golden goose may lose its sheen! It wouldn't be the first time some retard emulated a teatard, that being a false equivalence or not..
I've been waiting to see the spin here on this issue and I wasn't disappointed. This is different. Oh, we focused on Rush but this is different. Oh, when we say "war on women" we aren't playing politics, that's different.
This is how the game is played (ON BOTH SIDES) in today's instant social media, etc. When is either side going to talk REAL talk and fashion REAL solutions for REAL problems instead of creating political angles and slogans? I fear, not soon.
Dude/Dudette,
Sorry but you make no sense.
50 things against women vs 1 thing against women
Yup it's both sides all right.
You don't see a difference between trying to craft policies that will dramatically affect the lives of millions of women and one person's comments about one specific woman that will, in the end, have no impact on her life whatsoever? Honestly? You really don't? These two things are actually equivalent?
Wow.
I believe someone has to come down from their judgmental position and look around.... Do you think women are worried about the nation's debt? Yes, they are, but I would wager that many of them are more worried about their own debt, the debt their children have to incur to get a good education, and they fear their children's frustration with trying to find work out of school fresh with no working experience yet. They are worried about their own incomes and future security, their pensions...whether they will be there, their health, whether they can afford to stay healthy....their neighborhoods, whether they are safe enough and whether the businesses they depend on will survive and keep the area thriving..... They also probably worry about their parents and their health and their ability to take care of themselves when work requires their children to live separate from them...
Men probably are worried about much of the same things.....
But the nation's debt is only one of our worries of daily life in the US!
If Republicans don't want to be seen as waging a "war on women," here's a tip: don't wage a war on women's rights.
When your party takes away a woman's choices, her ability to be paid equally for equal work, and her family's opportunities to have decent health care, you can't be surprised when she votes for the candidate of the opposing party.
Now if I wanted to make my statement less sarcastic it would be this:
There is zero comparison between someone issuing a statement of opinion and someone issuing a statement advocating for a policy and/or especially if they then go on to actually pass that policy.
Nobody cares if you don't agree w/ gay marriage or abortion personally. But don't pass laws forcing those beliefs onto me. If you don't like things like abortion or female contraception fine. But don't actually pass laws forcing women to adhere to this belief.
Once again I find myself reiterating: there is a fundamental difference between tolerating the existence of other people and accepting other people for who they are. No one is asking that you accept gay marriage or abortion or contraception- well at least not on a national level. Sure you probably have friends who would ask this of you personally because of your personal connection and I'd surely ask this of you as both a friend and as part of an intellectual debate. But people are asking that you tolerate gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. I honestly don't care what someone says about something. Someone says I hate women OK fine whatever. But there's a fundamental difference between that and then going out and advocating for policies that reflect such a mentality.
The GOP has shown that it's rhetoric leads to policy and that policy will always reflect the rhetoric. Democrats have not shown this. I will meet you half way and say that yeah Democrats have been complicit in a lot of bullcrap and this is where Democratic voters become incredibly furious w/ the Democratic Party. But overall it's not President Obama who goes out saying "I think gay marriage is wrong so I'm going to pass a bill to make gay marriage illegal." He may say that he personally doesn't agree w/ it, but he doesn't then turn around and advocate those beliefs in the form of policy. When that starts happening then I'll join you in this equivalency cry. Until then I'm calling bullpuckey.
RobDon is stating a false equivalency. Of course he knows the Republican war against women and this pundit's utterance do not equate. He's just funnin' everybody.
The GOP will win the war of women (or catepillars) when all women, not just Ms. Romney, have the ability to choose whether to be stay-at-home moms or working mothers (or perhaps, not mothers at all).
In today's economy, there are mothers who stay home because there unemployed and/or can't afford childcare. There are also mothers who work because they can't afford to not work, i.e. their husbands aren't multi-millionaire venture capitalist. So while the GOP can pretend to wax histrionic about Rosen's comment, they really should be making sure that all women have the luxury of choice that Ms. Romney so eloquently extols.
These women don't get to "choose" one way or the other; their financial circumstances dictate what they do.
In my view, the point Rosen was trying (but failed) to make was that a Presidential candidate who is out of touch with the challenges a woman faces regarding economic issues (e.g., equal pay for equal work) relies on his equally out of touch wife to explain it to him.
Mrs. Romney is out of touch on many levels - although she raised 5 sons, she does not financially support her 5 sons (some women have to do it on their own). She has the ability to send them to the best schools and/or hire the best tutors with the flick of a pen. She has the luxury (yes, it is a luxury) of taking all the time necessary to attend to her 5 sons (e.g. with them while sick). It's a luxury that a woman who has a "job" and has to be at the job on her boss' schedule and in compliance with company policy does not have.
To think that Mrs. Romney is gonna explain to the Mr. how I live - when I stop laughing/crying, I'll let you know what I think about that.
And yes, this in no way is a war on women but is, actually, quite the opposite - a defense of women who do not have $100M (that we know of) in the bank!
Just a side note, not everyone can AFFORD to have 5 CHILDREN! Much less afford to have a stay-at-home-mother, and all the help she can buy.
Rosen could have put it into more politically correct terms, because stay-at-home-mothers are hard working. Otherwise, this is definitely silliness.
This kerfluffle is inanity six fold! Rosen chose her words poorly, but she did make a salient point - Ann Romney has not had to worry about earning a wage through her own wits as she was indeed raising her wonderful children. I read it not as an attack, but rather a comment that discernably projects the different realities of Middle Class Americans and the uber rich of the likes of the Romney family.
Now, Ann Romney has embraced the delusion that she knows what it is to struggle through difficult times. WTF lady, I don't owe you any props, and I don't believe you when you say you know what it is to struggle - you're full of bovine excrement Ms. Romney!
No, the false equivalency is only equaled by the false outrage the far Right lays on anyone who dares to challenge their status quo thought that they know best for all of us! The Romneys don't reflect small "d" democratic values so much as they hold the desire to be elected king and queen of America! -Kevo
Republicans knew exactly what she meant. They figured they could create a mountain out of not a molehill, but a couple of loose dirt clods. Anything to distract the media attention from their anti-female (and, too often, anti-male and anti-family) legislative efforts.
Nobody believes that Hilary Rosen was making remarks about the work done by mothers as they raise their children. It's more Republican spin.
Rosen's essential point was correct: Ann Romney has no experience with the kinds of situations and problems faced by most wives--whether or not they work outside of the house.
STOP APOLOGIZING, Dems!!! It makes you look like you're in the wrong when you're not. And it makes you look weak.
I thought I read that Messina and Axelrod immediately rejected Rosen's position. Doesn't that count for anything? Doesn't that make it clear that President Obama's campaign is NOT criticizing stay at home moms?
How do the lame brain media people get from A hired "pundit" who claims to be a Democrat saying something not too bright to the Obama position being what she said. Rosen is NOT with the administration or the campaign.
BTW, A Republican I know said that Mitt Romney can't stand to be around people who earn less than $100 million. Think that should be headline news?
Very disappointed in Messian and Axelrod reacting without knowing the whole story, they gave legitimacy to this false narrative.
They should have called out the RW spin last night and reminded all of the pro stay at home parent policies of the Dems. ACA alone is great for stay at home families.
At what point do we say that the MSM is not being duped into the false equivalency by the GOP, and start saying they're complicit in pushing the talking points of the Republican party?
Why is it that so many these false equivalencies seems to bailout the Republican party from a mess that they've gotten themselves in?
THANK YOU...and when Romney says crap like '92% of people who lost their jobs under OBAMA were women' why THEN don't we have a discussion on the role the GOP played in nailing UNIONS. Why don't we have a discussion on ECONOMICS and how it affects women as Rosen was TRYING to say before the REPUBLICANS parsed her words and brought out the B team women to be OUTRAGED? I don't think the women are gonna be fooled. 1100 bills to take away our rights trumps Ann Romney and her 'hard' work.
I agree with you, Rollo. Tonight, Brian Williams started off the NBC Nightly News with the claim that Rosen was an "unofficial" Obama surrogate, then proceeded to show clips of women across America saying they'd heard what this Rosen woman said and they just "couldn't believe it!"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/NBCNightlyNews/#47035233
No mention of the Catholic League, though, anywhere in the broadcast.
On First Read (at http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/12/11162556-ann-romney-we-need-to-respect-choices-that-women-make):
She's absolutely correct. We should most definitely respect the choices that women make...like for career, abortion, contraception, etc.
Not just career. ALL choices should be respected.
Sorry but Republicans ONLY like the word 'choice' when it comes to pulling the lever for THEM.
But, does Mrs. Romney understand what it's like to not have the luxury of having that choice?
Because that's what so many women face today.
Thank you Rollo-5302374! That's precisely the point I'd like to emphasize - doesn't she or others get that having that choice in the first place is a luxury?
The first comment made by Rosen was poorly chosen words because it can come off as saying stay at home mom have it easy - which they don't, parenting is a lot of work, especially when you're a hands on parent (i.e. not outsourcing your job to a nanny). But her clarification tweet hit the nail in the head in my opinion.
I am a parent of a toddler and I'd give up my job in a heart beat to be a full time mommy for her - I work because my husband's salary is not enough to make our ends meet and even despite bringing home a paycheck, a good portion of what i make disappears into daycare, rest being used up to pay our bills. I spend every waking moment of my time at home with my daughter, and without a job parenting is a LOT of work. I'd love to have a second kid, but we cannot afford to. Mrs. Romney needs to keep in mind that, most american moms dont' have the luxury to choose to be at a stay at home mom, let alone a stay at home mom for 5 kids - its financially viable to a VERY VERY small minority. I average 3.5 hours of sleep every night and am perpetually exhausted as a result and without a doubt the working moms are in similar predicament.
Ann Romney's comments about choice should, I think, be taken in the context of the fact that the right is now going after Rosen on a personal level for being a lesbian and an adoptive parent. So, the message that I am getting from the broader context is that the Ann Romney's choice not to work outside the home should be respected, and that all other choices must be disrespected.
Exactly! Doesn't she understand that the majority of the women don't have the choice of being a stay at home mom?! The audacity of the right wingers to turn this around as victimization of a stay at home multi-millionaire mom simply appalls me!
I'd give up my job in a heart beat to be a full time mommy to my two year old toddler - but the fact of the matter is, I HAVE to work because we cannot make it on my husbands salary alone. I work a decent paying white collar job and 60% of my take home pay goes to paying for my daughter's daycare that allows me to work, and the remaining 40% helps us pay down bills, student loans, car payments, etc. - certainly not enough to save (for ourselves or my daughter's college), and keep in mind, I'm frugal.
Being a hands on mom, I realize that without a doubt it is a LOT of work for stay at home moms who are also hands on parents (i.e. parents who don't outsource their parenting tasks to a nanny). But Mrs. Romney needs to realize while she had the luxury of CHOOSING to be a stay at home because her husband happened to be multi-millionaire, many other American mom's simply don't have that luxury due to their financial situations. I'm not going to chide her her choice of being a stay at home mom, but on what basis does she think she could possibly relate to me and the other mothers who are less fortunate than her in this aspect?! I work AND take care of my toddler at home after work AND take care of the all the household clean-up and chores (because a maid is yet another luxury we cannot afford!), leaving me with at the most 4 hours of sleep on any given night. I didn't "choose" to have/keep my job outside home once I had a baby - it was out of sheer necessity. My husband and I cannot AFFORD another baby. I can only imagine how much worse circumstances must be for many other moms who're stuck in underpaid jobs, and/or single moms who're left to fend for themselves. What's even more perplexing is that while the Republicans are actively working on eroding away womens' rights - from depriving us of equal pay to preventing us birth control access (please, explain to me, how married women who cannot afford more children are supposed to continue their relationship with their husbands), and to telling us what we can and cannot do with out bodies, Mrs. Romney and the right wingers have the audacity turn this around as the democratic war on women? Are the seriously deluded?!
Women who stay at home for a few years to raise children are also penalized financially in many ways. Part time jobs (often taken so that women can stay home when children are ill -- since day care often won't take sick kids and many employers will fire women who take sick days for their kids) pay less and often have no benefits or retirement contributions. Resuming work after being out of it for years is not easy, and women are often in jobs with slower upward trajectories and slower wage growth, despite their college degrees and earlier experience. All of this compounds over time so that by retirement age they may have limited savings. If they are no longer married, they may be in serious trouble. And in our society it's the daughters who are expected to care for their elderly parents, seriously stretching her health, professional time, and resources. In a variety of ways, GOP policies will make life EVEN harder for 99.9999% of women. I believe most women know that despite the GOP sound machine and complicit media.
I like that Fairfax picked up in the victimization thing, and that PEA takes it and turns it around to point out how it is GOP policies which are hurting working mothers the most. Nice teamwork on that. I especially like how it happened that the gaping hole in my own comment was neatly plugged by these two follow-ups. (Unfortunately, having never had kids, nor having even been wired for them, there are some things I'm just blind to.)
I'm very glad Ms. Romney gave us the opportunity to discuss thoroughly the economic hardships of regular working and non-working mothers. This is a conversation much needed. Thank you, Ms. Romney, even though I doubt this is the conversation you were hoping we'd have!
This whole Ann outrage is just another GOP tactic to distract away from an argument that they cannot defend. Even Lisa Murkowsky, a Rep, says there is a war on woman. Just look at the facts; abortion bills in the states up 400% since 2010, attempts to defund Planned Parenthood (ie TX and debt battle last year), the Blunt amendment, Scott Walker repels fair pay for women in WI, ultrasound bills, life begins at conception bills, GOP blocks Violence Against Woman Act, etc etc etc. Are all of these a fiction? What else do you need to convince you???
Everybody at MSNBC should have these talking points in front of them, and USE them every time a Rep on their show calls the war on women a fiction!!!!!!
Don't worry, I'm sure the Republicans will make every effort to preserve the lifestyle enjoyed by Mrs. Romney by not initiating any legislation requiring millionaire wives to tell their immensely wealthy husbands just how many dressage horses they have tucked away...
From RawStory:
Ann Romney has credited horse riding with helping her to deal with multiple sclerosis, a pastime that most sufferers of the disease do not have access to.
As The New York Times noted in 2007, dressage horses can run in the seven figures and the saddles can cost thousands of dollars.
But even at those prices, Ann Romney won’t tell her husband how many horses she owns.
“Mitt doesn’t even know the answer to that,” she laughed. “I’m not going to tell you!”
It must be quite a struggle to keep her stable stable when facing obstacles like those. I can't even fathom how stressful it must be to juggle the costs of boarding numerous show horses and at the same time keep that expense from Mittens. That's some household petty cash! Looks like Ann was born with a silver spoon AND a silver saddle!
Time to trot out the old "can't put the genie back in the bottle" axiom. Let's face it, because Romney is running a fundamentally dishonest campaign, and is in such a weak position, his campaign had no compunction about willfully "misunderstanding" what Rosen said. There's no denying Dems are now stuck in official damage control mode. In a day or two, though, the Etch-a-Sketch candidate will no doubt give us another tone-deaf "gem" and this particular news cycle will have run its course.
That the Romney campaign so desperately jumped on this complete non-issue is indicative of how jumpy and defensive the GOP is about their terrible image among American women. Unfortunately for them, most normal people will see through this ridiculous behavior by Team Romney. The bottom line is that Romney's agenda is one that would irreparably harm all Americans, including women. Ann Romney says she has a "choice" of whether to work or not, but her husband believes women have no choice when it comes to equal pay or controlling their bodies. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The Democratic Campaign needs to stop with all the panic.
The Romney machine is attempting to compare the wife of a millionaire with the other 99% of women who do NOT consider marriage much less marriage to Millionaire Mitt a "career choice".
Get real, when the majority of women decide to get married, they would call that a "life choice" their career choice would be a separate consideration.
This idea that the wife of a millionaire should somehow be “offended” by the implications of being called a “homemaker“, is ridiculous on its face!
I imagine it must be hard for a "homemaker" in this day and age to clean all those mansions here below.
Actually, I am astounded that anyone would even think to compare my life as a wife, mother, and homemaker while holding down a "non-career" JOB, to the "Wives of Orange County".
If anyone should be offended, I would say it is the 99% of women who do NOT have the Career "OPPORTUNITIES" that the 1% has, much less what .001% seem to enjoy.
A previous commenter argued that Ann never had to struggle to feed her five children. In fact, Ann may never have had to feed her children at all. Even the multimillion dollar pittance Mitt received from his father would have been enough to keep The Family Romney stocked with au pairs even during the hard slog through the Halls of Ivy.
I actually saw what Hilary Rosen said and frankly SHE WAS RIGHT!!!! I'm sorry she apologized. She may not have said it in exactly the most politically correct manner, but she raised a valid issue!!
Romney DOES always mention his wife ("my wife reports to me") when he makes comments about "what women think" and he uses her as his "everywoman". But Ann Romney is NOT "everywoman":
she has never had to worry about finding a job to feed her family,
she has never had to worry about finding a job to pay the rent,
she has never had to try and find affordable child care
she has never had to worry about finding a SAFE school for her children,
she has never had to worry about if she had the money to get her children
medical care,
she has never had to worry how she would feed her family if she lost
her husband (death or divorce) and ........
Ann Romney has nothing in common with most women of this country other than she was born with 2 X chromosomes.
Great, so she stayed home with her children (and could have as many children as she wanted) - most women in this country do NOT have that option!!! Anymore, that is an option that is only available to the rich! And all those commentors, male, female, Republican or Democrat, who are jumping on Ms. Rosen right now are WRONG!!! They are just feeding the "new" Republican propaganda machine.
So long as Romney and the "new" Republican Party think all women should be like Ann Romney - their "everywoman" - they will be against things like contraception, affordable healthcare, equal pay for women, etc. The next thing you will hear from the "new" Republican Party is that those evil women who work are taking away all the jobs from the men!
This needs to be flipped into the Republican War on Stay at Home Moms. ACA will help these families. Equal pay law help, as do strong unions. Remember the living wage, it makes it possible for a parent to stay home.
Let the R have the 1% moms, the rest of us will understand which policies help us.
And yet, not a word of it was untrue.
I think a lot of these guys in Washington might benefit from watching a few minutes of T.V. every night. Maybe they do and it doesn't matter. The art of communication is becoming more and more scarce in the political arena. On your show you joked about democrats being called communist. So what do you call what the republican party is trying to do to women? They insist it's not a war. Is it just that they really think no one is paying attention or that they won't fight back?
I just read that the head of ALEC gave a speech in which he asked women if they understood him or if he wasn't speaking in enough 'little words' for them to grasp it.
My thought was, "Wow! These conservative men must really believe (since in the boardroom, the locker room, the country club where the real men that they know must be freely expressing the same disdain for women) -- that all Americans are secretly on the same page with them: they hate and look down on women. Sort of like the "Bradley Effect' where conservatives convinced themselves that Obama could not win, despite the polls."
And yet, not a word of it was untrue.
Ann Romney as an advocate for working women makes as much sense as Bristol Palin being Pro- Absteinance Only!
So Ann Romney was a stay at home mom,so what. There are millions of women that have to be stay at home/working moms.They get so much time at home and so much time at work. But they do'nt have the luxury of nannies or maids.They have to rush home from work,cook dinner,take sis, junior or both to soccer,football or whatever activity they're in .Unlike Mrs Romney that could have her driver take Tagg to polo practice.While she instructs the cook what to have for dinner when Mitt gets home from a tough day of killing jobs.Yes raising kids is a tough job but being a stay at home money mom is a lot different then a stay at home/working mom.
Doesn't that make her a "Real Housewife", then?
Drew ... You're onto a great idea. You should sell it to a network. A new TV series, starring people in similar economic situations to Ann Romney's: Real Housewives of the 1% (or 1/10 or 1%).
What a pundit says on TV is not the same as legislators passing laws. The pundit is not elected nor does the pundit have any power over other people's lives. There is false equivalency that is being used by Republicans and conservatives that use statements that come from people outside the political arena as the same as the statements from those in the political arena. Limbaugh has used this tactic many times. What someone on MSNBC or the Occupy movement says is not the same as a Dem politician or represents the Dem party view.
What everyone's missing about this story are the ponies!
It's ever-so-hard to watch after 5 kids when you have a team of horses - so many your husband doesn't even know - to look after! Between the 9 houses, 2 cadillacs, a diarrheic dog, enough horses to cause a stampede (apparently), who has the time to look after 5 kids? Ann Romney's a saint!
To me Ann is just like Mitt. She was an adult when he strapped that poor dog on the roof and did nothing to stop it. She just went along with that outrageous behavior.