Ann’s first tweet came just moments after Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen lobbed an insult at Ann Romney, suggesting that the 64-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 16 had never held a job.
“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” said Rosen, who was being interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the “war on women.”
And then, just like that, a familiar name popped up on Twitter: @AnnDRomney.
“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work,” Ann tweeted.
The Romney campaign confirmed to ABC News that the account belongs to Ann Romney.
The tweet came just as husband Mitt wrapped up a second day of campaigning that all but entirely focused on the “war against women,” packing events with female business leaders and accusing the Obama administration’s economic policies of hurting women.
“I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a tweet.
Top Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod also tweeted his disapproval: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”
The reaction on Twitter from high level politicos was instant and virtually unanimous: Rosen had gone too far.
Rosen’s comment also prompted Ann Romney herself to make her twitter debut.
“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys,” Romney tweeted. “Believe me, it was hard work.”
Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her comments on CNN’s “AC360.”
“What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Rosen said.
Hilary Rosen: Ann Romney and Working Moms – My Twitter feed was on fire after an appearance last night on CNN’s AC360, where I said that I thought it was wrong for Mitt Romney to be using his wife as his guide to women’s economic struggles when she “had never worked a day in her life.” Oh my, you should read the tweets and the hate mail I got after that. The accusations were flying. I don’t know what it means to be a mom (I have 2 children). I obviously don’t value the work that a mother does and how hard it is (the hardest job I have ever had); and I absolutely hate anyone who doesn’t have the same views as I do (hate is a strong word).
Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women’s rights and advancement as a way to score political points. When it comes to supporting policies that would actually help women, their silence has been deafening. I don’t need lectures from the RNC on supporting women and fighting to increase opportunities for women; I’ve been doing it my whole career. If they want to attack me and distract the public’s attention away from their nominee’s woeful record, it just demonstrates how much they just don’t get it.
Why did Reagan give those speeches? Contrary to Obama’s suggestion that he was specifically arguing for a new tax provision aimed at the superwealthy, Reagan was barnstorming the country in an effort to reduce taxes for all Americans, mainly by cutting rates, simplifying the tax system and eliminating tax shelters that allowed some people to avoid paying any taxes at all.
In other words, Reagan was pushing for a tax cut for everyone, not just an increase on a few. (The highest tax bracket at the time was 50 percent.) He even wanted to cut the tax rate on capital gains from 20 percent to 17.5 percent.
This Will Be The Highest Stakes Poker Game In History – A never-before-seen $1 million buy-in tournament at the World Series of Poker this year will generate the richest top prize in poker history at more than $12 million —and potentially more if additional players get in.
Series officials planned to announce Thursday that 30 players are committed to participate in the Big One for One Drop starting July 1 in Las Vegas
Google+ gets major redesign with simpler UI and more customization – Google announced this morning that Google+ is set to receive a massive redesign over the next few days that will make it easier to use and much more intuitive. The company has been innovating quickly with its social network, and this is just another example of their commitment to the platform.
For starters, the main page has seen a complete overhaul. Rather than your tabs bring up top as well as along the side, you’ll get icons along the left panel. These are also customizable, so if you don’t want the Games icon, you can simply move it. There are also quick actions that you can access for each icon by hovering over them.
Posting photos and videos is getting an upgrade as well. Larger content will appear in your Stream now whether you’re sharing it yourself or viewing pictures from your friends. Google is adding a feature that they’re calling ‘cards’, which are streams of conversations that you can join. There will also be an activity drawer to highlight important content.
Great news: Subprime lending escalating again – Hey, who’s up for the hair of the dog that nearly destroyed the American financial system in 2008? The good news is that the sudden increase in subprime lending hasn’t hit the mortgage market yet. The bad news is that it’s hitting just about everywhere else:
But as financial institutions recover from the losses on loans made to troubled borrowers, some of the largest lenders to the less than creditworthy, including Capital One and GM Financial, are trying to woo them back, while HSBC and JPMorgan Chase are among those tiptoeing again into subprime lending.
Credit card lenders gave out 1.1 million new cards to borrowers with damaged credit in December, up 12.3 percent from the same month a year earlier, according to Equifax’s credit trends report released in March. These borrowers accounted for 23 percent of new auto loans in the fourth quarter of 2011, up from 17 percent in the same period of 2009, Experian, a credit scoring firm, said.
Consumer advocates and lawyers worry that the financial institutions are again preying on the most vulnerable and least financially sophisticated borrowers, who are often willing to take out credit at any cost.
These are my links for August 18th from 14:07 to 20:57:
Warren Buffett’s derided wisdom – LA Times Smoking Crack Again – Investors might hang on Warren Buffett's every word when it comes to financial advice, but Republicans are less than enthusiastic about the Oracle of Omaha's opinions on taxation. After the billionaire chairman of investment firm Berkshire Hathaway wrote an op-ed in the New York Times complaining that the mega-rich are undertaxed in comparison to the middle class, conservatives urged him to voluntarily send more of his own money to the Internal Revenue Service and leave others alone. Not only are they willfully missing Buffett's point, they're seemingly oblivious to the fact that in many ways his tax ideas mirror those of Ronald Reagan.
Hard to believe as it may seem, it has been a quarter of a century since the last comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was signed by President Reagan, the number of tax brackets was reduced, loopholes were closed, the top tax rate was lowered and capital gains were taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Yet in the years since, Congress has steadily drilled loopholes back into the code while lowering the tax burden for wealthy people who make money through investments rather than labor. That was the source of Buffett's complaint.
But, what did Reagan do in 1981?
The LA Times Editorial writers either wish to ignore history or simply have been smoking LEFT WING Crack for way too long.
President 2012: Lawsuit Alleges Rick Santorum’s Website Built With ‘Counterfeit’ Font – The company's complaint calls out Raise Digital for taking fonts from their Fedra font family and modifying them so they could be used on Santorum's website. Designers often use a method available through a technology called Cascading Style Sheets to host a font on their client's web server and provide it to each visitor — but generally, they make sure to get license to use that font on the web first. The complaint, which goes out of its way to say that the Santorum campaign isn't involved, alleges that Raise Digital — or whomever Raise Digital hired to do the design work — didn't have that license.
Then things get technical: The suit says the font that appeared on Santorum's website was a modified version of one of theirs — tweaked so that it would work on the web — and that the resulting product was "counterfeit."
I asked Gabe Levine, a San Francisco-based intellectual property lawyer who represents new media companies, if what Typotheque alleges Raise Digital did would be a rookie mistake.
"I'd say it's pretty rookie, yeah," he said. Later in the conversation, he added, "When one of my competent developer clients uses a font, they make damn well sure they have a right to use it."
Raise Digital's founder, Justin Hart — who we know from his work for Chuck DeVore's aborted campaign last year to become the Republican nominee for one of California's U.S. Senate seats — declined to comment.
These are my links for March 22nd from 09:10 to 09:12:
Can California tax Internet purchases? – California's severe budget squeeze and a stagnant economy have rekindled a political war over how Internet purchases should be taxed – if, indeed, they could be taxed.
California already has one of the nation's highest sales tax rates, approaching 10 percent in some communities. But it's applied only to transactions inside the state or to mail order and Internet sales when the seller has a "physical presence" in the state.
The latter condition – decreed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 – is the rub.
Technically, Californians who buy from distant sellers are supposed to pay an equivalent "use tax" on state income tax returns. Few do, and enforcement is virtually impossible.
That would seem to be that, but the potential revenue gain – officially at least a few hundred million dollars a year – and pressure from brick-and-mortar merchants about untaxed competition have sparked efforts to mine the Internet and mail sales vein.
The situation's bête noire is Amazon, the huge Internet seller of almost everything. New York seized upon Amazon's use of affiliated sellers as the "physical presence" or "nexus" that would require it to collect sales taxes. But the New York law is tied up in the courts, and Amazon has threatened to cancel affiliate relations in any state that follows suit.
Some California legislators want to emulate New York, prompting Amazon to issue a declaration that it not only opposes four pending taxation bills as violating the Supreme Court decision, but "would be compelled to end its advertising relationships with well over 10,000 California-based participants in the Amazon associates program." Overstock.com issued a similar warning.
Read it all.
Levin 1, Wehner 0 – Advantage, Levin. Even if you don’t believe the seemingly apocryphal stories about Reagan regretting the 1986 bill, it clearly failed. (The amnesty part worked. The border enforcement part was blocked.) It’s one thing to say Reagan supported this policy the first time. It’s another to claim he would have supported making the same mistake a second time–and that this is the “conservative” approach. … P.S.: It’s particularly disingenuous for Wehner to claim that Bush “never supported” a Reagan-like “amnesty.” The main difference between Reagan’s approach and Bush’s is that Reagan was honest enough to call it what it was (“amnesty”). Bush and his apparatchiks preferred poll-tested confections like “path to citizenship.” … Also, Bush’s amnesty was bigger. …
Bush's Amnesty Plan or Path to Citizenship would have been a MAJOR disaster.
Reagan's "Amnesty" was bad enough – Mark Levin was correct.
These are my links for March 18th from 18:23 to 18:25:
President 2012: Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush – Re: Sarah Palin – My friend Pete Wehner took my criticism of President George W. Bush and some of his most senior staff as a challenge to compare Bush to President Ronald Reagan. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/17/answering-mark-levins-challenge/ Comparing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is like comparing Margaret Thatcher and John Major. That's not to put down Bush or Major, both of whom were fine leaders, but they were not the historical figures their former staffers and supporters insist.
Who said? "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Well, those words would never have passed Reagan's lips. It was infamously said by Bush, in defense of his massive spending spree in the last weeks of his presidency. There's nothing conservative about it. But it sums up Bush's lack of confidence in the free market system, and his repeated and excessive use of government intervention in American society.
Bush never claimed to be the conservative Reagan was, nor did he spend his early political career challenging GOP orthodoxy, which, until Reagan won in 1980, was mostly incoherent mush of the Rockefeller-Scranton-Nixon-Ford-Bush/41 kind. George H. W. Bush and other mainstream Republican primary challengers sought to thwart Reagan because, they insisted, his conservatism would be rejected by the voters. Now, Pete insists that as president, Reagan's record, in virtually all respects, is inferior to George W. Bush's, in advancing conservative principles. This is not only counter-intuitive, it is factually defective. As I proceed with this discussion, I believe it will become evident.
In his response, Mark groups Karl Rove, David Frum, and me, all of whom served in the Bush administration. While having gracious words to say about me, Mark argues that “Bush’s record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse.” He raises this point not to compare Bush to Palin, he says, but “to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner.” He adds parenthetically that “If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.”
The gold standard for Levin is Ronald Reagan, which got me to thinking: from a conservative policy perspective, how does Bush’s record stand up to Reagan’s?