ROVE: It was negative, nasty, mean and unnecessary! And — and this — this so-called apology, with all due respect to Ms. Rosen, was a half apology. I mean, she was the one, I repeat, who started what she called a phony war on stay-at-home moms. And — and her — it was not contrite. That was — that was just — look, I think — I think there are people in Chicago who – – who are happy that Hilary Rosen has said this thing and has injected this into the campaign…VAN SUSTEREN: They’ve thrown her under the bus already.ROVE: … and they’re…VAN SUSTEREN: Oh, they’ve quickly thrown her under the bus.ROVE: Yes, well, they — yes, in a 140-word Twitter — tweet. You know, nobody has — nobody has called her up…VAN SUSTEREN: Well, they threw her under the bus…ROVE: … Debbie Wasserman Schultz…VAN SUSTEREN: … a lot faster — they’ve thrown her under the bus a lot faster than they did, for instance, Reverend Wright. I mean…(CROSSTALK)ROVE: Yes, I repeat — I repeat, with a tweet. They should have called up Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic national chairman, whom they instructed to put Rosen in as a senior adviser and say, Publicly fire her as a senior adviser! But they don’t do that. Why? Because one of the persons who has — who has coined the phrase “war on women” and used it probably more than anybody — and other public figure is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the Democratic Party!VAN SUSTEREN: Look, I…
ROVE: The Chicago crowd is happy to have this out there!
VAN SUSTEREN: Karl, I’m totally in agreement with you on this “war on women” thing. I’m totally — I mean, that’s — that is phony. You know, I totally agree with that, you know, 100 percent.I think that the way Hilary Rosen handled this last night, the point that she was trying to get, whether you agree with her or not, was — it was handled very poorly. It was clumsy. I’m only telling you that she’s not anti-stay-at-home mothers. I can tell you that. You know, from the — I know that…
Greta is a faithful friend, I’ll grant her that. But she failed miserably in her attempt to defend the indefensible.
VAN SUSTEREN: … more of a reference to Governor Romney than it was to Mrs. Romney because I think the whole point that she was trying to say that, who he was looking for as economic advice. I actually thought the shot was more at him.ROVE: No. There are three — she takes three sentences and devotes three separate shots at Ann Romney. And look, Greta, we’re going to disagree about this. I understand that. I think people ought to just go to YouTube, Hilary Rosen, CNN appearance, and judge for themselves.It was personal! It was mean! It was nasty! And her apology is — is — is halfhearted! And I suspect there are guys in Chicago sitting in that headquarters who are saying, God, we were smart to get that 140-word tweet out, and isn’t it great we got our shot in and we were able to distance ourselves with it. And don’t bother picking up the phone and calling Debbie Wasserman Schultz and telling her to fire Rosen as an adviser. We can’t do that. But thank goodness we’ve handled it the way we did.
No honest differences are possible with Mr. Obama. He will impugn the motives of any who disagree with him. As he told the AP, his opponents want to “let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity.” His agenda “isn’t a partisan feeling . . . [it]isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.” To disagree with him is unpatriotic. That’s to be expected from Republicans, whom Mr. Obama says stand for “thinly veiled social Darwinism . . . [that is] antithetical to our entire history.”
Mr. Obama will build entire edifices on top of one fake premise, all dressed up in one big phony assumption. Take the House GOP budget plan. It increases federal outlays from roughly $3.6 trillion this year to nearly $4.9 trillion in 2022. In the AP speech the president called this a “cut” because he wants to increase spending to $5.8 trillion in 2022.
He warned that if the GOP’s “cuts . . . were to be spread out evenly across the budget,” then “Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS” research would be slashed, 10 million college students denied assistance, and “thousands” of researchers and teachers “could lose their jobs.” But Republicans don’t cut across the board. Instead, their focus is on waste, duplication, programs that do not work, and on reform.
Andrew Malcolm, IBD: Who is this guy pretending to be president?:
OK, Obama wants political skirmishes all over on any petty thing so people won’t notice the absence of any conceivably positive record to run on. Risky when Americans start paying attention. But if that’s his only card. It’s all the Republicans’ fault, of course. That’s the candidate in him, the one that prefers performing for adoring crowds instead of performing Oval Office duties.
But whatever happened to the president part? The leader. The principled man who through his personal story, skills and charm was going to inspire, convince, cajole Americans as diverse as himself to work together for a common national success? That official part has merged with the political, like the four Florida speeches. Now, he’s just trying to fool everybody about everything.
In a way, this could be good news for Republicans. The duplicate Ernst Blofeld makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Rogers.
But without real presidential leadership, Obama’s hand-picked harpie atop the Democratic National Committee feels empowered to assign a hired gun to dismiss his opponent’s wife, the cancer-surviving mother of five sons, as someone who’s never worked a day in her life. Are they that scared already?
Seriously? We’re going to pit now one kind of working woman against another? The guy who talks about having so many women in his life isn’t going to fire the women responsible for that? He thinks American women will buy this stuff?
OK, Obama was raised by grandparents because he didn’t always have a stay-at-home mom or dad. But this is a nation, not a dysfunctional family or a windy city party where factions are left to their own wards and Solyndras.
Obama is the guy who said his own wife was off limits politically, the guy whose mother-in-law has resided since Day One in the White House at taxpayer expense as a live-in nanny so the first lady can campaign for money and healthy foods? But a woman who stays at home with her kids at no public expense can be trashed because of her party?
We were never exactly fond of the Original Obama. But we’d take him any day over the twilight character that inhabits the Oval Office now.
Michelle Malkin: Real Moms of the GOP battle White House SOP:
This was no accidental rhetorical drive-by. “Progressives” from Gloria Steinem to Patricia Ireland to Naomi Wolf have derided their conservative counterparts as female impersonators, fake women and men with breasts from time immemorial. It’s SOP: standard operating procedure. In 1992, Hillary Clinton mocked women who stayed at home and “baked cookies and had teas.” In 2004, blueblood Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, sniffed that first lady Laura Bush (a former teacher and librarian before becoming a homemaker) never “had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.”
What’s changed in 2012 is the Internet revenge of thousands of conservative female activists who have played a larger role than ever in controlling political narratives. These include tea party leaders such as Breitbart.com editor Dana Loesch, national grassroots groups such as Smart Girl Politics, the proliferation of conservative female bloggers and podcasters, and the critical mass of stay-at-home moms, work-at-home moms and young conservative women flocking to Twitter.
As we’ve documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site, Twitchy.com, GOP moms, grandmothers and daughters have besieged White House social media efforts to paint conservatives as anti-women. They’ve torn apart hypocritical White House rhetoric about equal pay from an administration that has failed to practice what it preaches.
And as Ann Romney is now experiencing on Twitter, the women of the right are fighting their way through a hostile cesspool of misogyny that has been SOP for the feminist left.
Rosen and her media defenders dismissed “faux outrage” about her attack. But the real moms of the GOP have launched their own Occupy movement in the social media space once dominated by Obama’s army. And they’re winning.
Hilarious. It’s been a preeminent campaign theme for well over a month now…they’ve been fund-raising off of it. Anyone can check the Congressional record for the countless references to the “Republican War on women”. Weasel links to the DNC store “War on Women” car magnets. The “communications expert” is a nincompoop.
Taxes Stupidity and Death: You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby!
Remember when conservative women used to have to run for office to experience the scorn of the Left for being of the wrong political persuasion, and therefore ineligible for the defense and protection of the Party of Identity Politics?
Now, you don’t even have to be the candidate. Being married to the candidate and having committed the crime of raising your five boys instead of paying someone else to do it is enough to bring to you the tolerance and inclusion that the left reserves especially for those who reject their social hegemony, and instead choose to live according to “outdated” and “archaic notions”. They aren’t worthy of the same outrage reserved for other candidate’s wives who find themselves under scrutiny for things they have actually said.