On his MSNBC morning show, "UP," this morning, 4-15-12, Chris Hayes demonstrated how Mitt Romney is deeply hypocritical, this time about his views on the meaning of work.

Chris played (at about the 55th minute into his two-hour program) a clip of Romney sharing the stage with McCain and Romney was then advocating that mothers of children as young as two years of age enter the workforce. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySVgRqFE_8 for the clip itself.)

From a January 2012 campaign speech, Romney said: "I also like the idea that people who are receiving assistance, welfare assistance, have a responsibility of working. In my state we made good progress in that regard, to follow in the days of the welfare reform act but then when I was governor 85% of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my stage had no work requirement. And I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said for instance that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. and people said, well, that's heartless. I said, no, no I am willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It will cost the state more providing that day care but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work. And get people back into the workforce."

By Mitt's own definition, then, his wife's efforts in the home do not qualify as work as she did not enjoy "the dignity of work" in "the workforce." He sure wasn't saying that stay-at-home moms were "working" but rather was trying to force them to put their children in daycare and go out to work, even for those with children two years of age.

Certainly by Mitt's January definition of work, Hillary Rosen was absolutely correct about Ann's never having worked a day in her life -- as Mitt was counting as work only work done outside the home.

What a plastic guy! Contort, twist -- That's our Mitt!

Yours,

Caleb

Comments

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Currently Chatting

The Post-Citizens United Era.

This month marks five years since the United States Supreme Court made their infamous ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. That ruling turned a century of legal precedent on its head with the declaration that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money in elections. And, that ruling opened the floodgates to massive spending levels in our political process.