Maher Reignites the War on Moms

RUSH: Barbara Boxer did not get the memo about the war on women being over. She wrote an editorial for the Politico over the weekend entitled, "Foul Play: War on Women is Real." And in her editorial, Barbara "Don't Call Me 'Ma'am,' Call Me Senator" Boxer... Hee-hee-hee-hee. Remember that? "I am Senator Boxer! Don't call me ma'am." That's really apropos here. In her op-ed, Boxer claimed that the Republicans had been relentlessly trying to restrict women's reproductive health care, by which Boxer means murdering women before they're born. Sounds like a war on women to me. That's what the real war on women is, is abortion, by the way. If you just want to speak bluntly, if you want to speak openly, the real war on women is abortion -- and we know of the two political parties which one really gets behind that and has made it a political issue, do we not?

We most definitely do. Let's go to the audio sound bites. We're gonna start here F. Chuck Todd. F. Chuck must have been on vacation last week. We woulda had some F. Chuck sound bites last week and we didn't, so I guess he's back. So Meet the Press Sunday during the round table, David Gregory hosting in there, and they're talking about Romney and remarks attacking Ann Romney. And Gregory said, "You know, I talk to people within the Romney campaign. Hey, there's a tangible bit of damage here in the gender gap."

TODD: They found one thing, and, boy, did they move to essentially manufacture a controversy, because this is not an Obama surrogate. This is a paid CNN commentator, all of those things. But they were pretty effective at using them. We know the echo chamber that's out there.

RUSH: So here's another one! This woman was paid $120,000 by the DNC. Hilary Rosen is tied to the White House in multiple ways. And here comes F. Chuck at NBC News, "Ah, what is this? She's a paid CNN commentator! She works at CNN." Just like Axelrod. Axelrod last week said (paraphrased), "Well, she works for you, John," talking to John King. "She doesn't work for us. She works for you at CNN!" This is why we call these people stenographers. They're State-Controlled Media. Not only does F. Chuck repeat Axelrod's absurd certification that Hilary Rosen's a CNN employee, but then he asserts that the Romney campaign manufactured the Rosen controversy.

By the way, you ought to see all the blog posts on the left. "Can we get rid of this phony outrage?" they're asking. "Can we stop this? It was fine to manufacture phony outrage during Sandra Fluke, and it was fine to keep that going for three weeks, but this? There's no point here. This is ridiculous. Aren't we just outraged out? Can we just get rid of the outrage?" Here's Bill Maher (Snerdley was unaware of this) Friday night on Maher's program Real Time on HBO.

MAHER: What she meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work. No one's denying that being a mother is a tough job. I remember I was a handful. Okay, but, you know, there is a big difference between being a mother in that tough job and getting your ass out the door at seven a.m., when it's cold, having to deal with a boss, being in a workplace where, even if you're unhappy, you can't show it for eight hours. That is kind of a different kind of tough thing.

RUSH: How does he know that Ann Romney hasn't experienced that in her life? Anyway, that's not the question. Maher has kept it alive. Do you know what the real threat of stay-at-home moms is to leftists? You know what the real threat they are? They don't need government! They are the essence of individuality. Stay-at-home moms are the essence of rugged individualism, and they don't need the state. They're not soccer moms, and that's why they are a threat.

RUSH: Bill Maher says that what Hilary Rosen really meant to say was that Ann Romney has never had to get out of the house at seven o'clock in the morning in order to get the day started. She had to get the kids out of the house, but she didn't have to put up with anybody. She didn't have any dire economic circumstances that she had to deal with. William Jacobson has a blog called Legal Insurrection, and he had a really good post on this subject. And it's not that long. So allow me to read it to you. "Put aside, for the moment, the snotty and snide aspect of Hilary Rosen’s comment that Ann Romney 'never worked a day in her life.'

"Put aside, for the moment, the psychological need of liberal female pundits to belittle a woman who chose a different path in life, while the person whom they belittle has no commensurate need to belittle the life choice of the liberal female pundits." For example, all these leftists are running around ripping into Ann Romney. She doesn't rip into them for their life choices. She doesn't raise questions about choices they've made, but they are out there doing it about her constantly and about all the rest of us constantly well. "Put aside, for the moment," Mr. Jacobson notes, "that the liberal female pundits belittling Ann Romney for having lived in an economically privileged position also live an economically privileged life."

In the case of Hilary Rosen, she was the chief lobbyist for the Recording Industry Association of America. She represented all the record labels in Washington. She was the music version of Jack Valenti, who represented Hollywood that way. And those people are not paid chump change. Hilary Rosen doesn't have "economic challenges" with her two adopted little kids. And neither does Cokie Roberts, and neither does Soledad O'Brien. )Did you hear what Ailes said about Soledad O'Brien? He said, "That's the woman named after a prison." Is that not great? Somebody asked him about Soledad O'Brien. (laughing) "You mean the one named after a prison?")

Anyway, all of these leftist liberal babes on TV and in the news, they, too -- like Ann Romney -- don't have economic challenges to deal with. They've all got nannies. They probably have drivers getting them to and from work. If not, they're driving fine automobiles on their own. "Put aside, for the moment," Mr. Jacobson says, "all of the irony and hypocrisy. On what logical basis do these [leftist] pundits assert that only a woman who has struggled economically in life is qualified to speak about economic issues affecting women?" and that's a great question.

I remember, folks, I have been told over the years (as have many conservatives), "Hey, when you have a chance back in the sixties, you didn't sign up and go over there to Vietnam and start shooting commies. So you don't have any right to talk about the defense budget! You weren't there." The left tries this all the time. If you don't have certain life experience, you are not allowed -- it's not not qualified, you are not permitted! -- to speak. And Ann Romney is not permitted to talk about economic issues with her husband, not permitted to be an adviser, because she hasn't lived these tough economic circumstances. Well, on what basis does that makes sense?

"Now," Jacobson concludes by saying, "let’s not put aside the ironies and hypocrisy. If a life of economic struggle is a prerequisite for a woman to speak about economic issues affecting women, then aren’t many if not most of the liberal female pundits belittling Ann Romney disqualified from the discussion, too?" Darn right they are. Pick your favorite female pundit on television or in print and ask yourself: "Are they really worried about the price of milk? Are they worried about baby formula? Are they worried cost of an abortion? Are they worried about the cost of contraception?" A couple college kids, maybe.

But somehow they are qualified to talk about women's issues and Ann Romney isn't.

RUSH: I tell you, this Ann Romney business, this Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, really good point, who says that Ann Romney or any woman has no right to talk about matters of economics if they haven't lived a very hard life? Well, who says? Do you realize Abraham Lincoln never owned slaves. That means we need to cancel the Civil War, go back to the way it was and start again, right? Lincoln had no business dealing with slavery. He didn't know what he was talking about. He didn't own slaves.

It's the same argument that they're advancing about Ann Romney, or me, or anybody else, and notice this censorship always comes from the left. It's always people to the left who are telling other people what they can and can't say, or what they're qualified or unqualified to talk about. And it's these leftist liberal pundits who are making the claim that Ann Romney and Bill Maher -- but I repeat myself -- who claim that Ann Romney's not qualified because life's been easy for her. Cancer, MS, five kids, yeah, it's been easy. Yeah, she doesn't know what she's talking about. Well, Lincoln didn't own slaves. So I guess Lincoln shouldn't have been allowed to weigh in on slavery. These people on the left, folks, I don't know any redeeming qualities. There is not one aspect of these people I want to emulate. What's Obama's qualification to talk about anything other than agitating people? What else has he done in his life but agitate? Yet we let him be a health care expert?

In May of 2005 Maher began contributing as a blogger for the Huffington Post to talk about his opinions on politics and social problems.

Bill Maher holds the records for most Emmy losses at 22, 11 of which were for Politically Incorrect. He is also known for his relationship with Playboy Cyber Girl Coco Johnsen, who sued him in 2004 for $9 million as a result of “pain and suffering.” He then dated New York Times best-selling author Karrine Steffans, and is currently linked to Cara Santa Maria.

Maher has a net worth of $23 million

White House adviser David Plouffe (who also served as Obama’s campaign manager) made millions before he joined the White House staff, with a good chunk of that coming from “management contracts” with General Electric and Boeing-two of the biggest beneficiaries of government contracts.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/david_plouffes_ties_to_ge_and.html

Boxer, like most on the pro-’choice’ side and sadly even many people on the pro-Life side simply ACCEPT the premise of diminshed social/educational/economic prospects for women if they are parents (relative to men who are parents).

Even our SC Justices accepted this as their basic premise for upholing Roe v. Wade!

“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” ___ Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter.

So, get that? Women’s equal standing in our society is CONDITIONAL on their reproductive and parental status ... but men’s standing in society is UNCONDITIONAL.

Where in the Constitution does it state that equality is conditional on race, sex, reproductive status, parental status or anything else? Nowhere. Pro-’choice’ people invented that conditional aspect, but ONLY FOR WOMEN, out of whole cloth.

Sexists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.