« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why No Media Mention That Hilary Rosen Is Openly Gay?

By: Myra Adams (Diary)  |  April 12th, 2012 at 12:46 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“She Has Never Worked A Day In Her Life”

That is the screaming headline this morning on Drudge, uttered by top Democratic consultant and Obama adviser Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney last night on CNN with Anderson Cooper.

This attack on Mitt’s wife, mother of five boys and grandmother of 16, has ignited a media firestorm and opened up a new battleground as the ongoing (real or imagined) “War on Women” now takes casualties on both sides.

The Obama campaign high-command has dressed down Ms. Rosen via Twitter.

From ABC News: “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.”

So with Obama’s top generals weighing in, expect this battle to rage on for at least a news cycle or two.

Now, here is a question worth pondering:

Does it matter that Hilary Rosen is openly gay? Should this fact even be mentioned?

Is it worth knowing?

As I was reading numerous mainstream media accounts of the controversy, I did not see this fact mentioned anywhere. Why won’t the media mention this?

I am merely raising the question, not making a judgment.

Ms. Rosen is a long time top Obama advisor. She has visited the White House 35 times. In March, she was invited to the White House State Dinner honoring British Prime Minister David Cameron where numerous guests were openly gay.

Ms. Rosen’s date for the White House dinner was her partner, Randi Weingarten who happens to be President of the American Federation of Teachers — a union boss, in other words.

Together, Ms. Rosen and Ms. Weingarten have been cited as a “lesbian power couple”.

Again, I am not judging, I am just stating some facts about Ms. Rosen since she is front and center today.

The heart of one question in this dust up between Ms. Rosen and Mrs. Romney is:

Does sexual orientation matter in shaping one’s opinion on working women vs. stay-at-home mothers who are supported by their husbands?

It will be interesting to watch if the mainstream media bothers to ask that question or bring Ms. Rosen’s sexual orientation into today’s heated discussion.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • avgjo

    You can judge behavior and character. Everyone does it, everyday.

    See that seedy looking guy down there at the end of the street you’re walking on, standing in the dark? He’s probably up to no good, or his intentions are not the best. Wait. We shouldn’t judge.

    One of the areas the left has been most successful in is in twisting the meaning of what Jesus said about judging people. We can’t judge men’s souls, but we can judge their behavior and character. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’

    Sorry, i’m not trying to pick a bone with you. But this ‘we can’t judge’ crap is destroying the country, because nobody will call wrong, wrong.

    and the point you raise – yes, I’d be willing to bet it has plenty to do with her comments. A lot of lesbians resent traditional gender roles.

  • Christine

    She is a liberal and a feminist. She imagines rich pampered SAHMs sitting around oblivious to economic issues, how their kids are fed and how they get to school, getting their toes manicured and baking cookies. To her, those women are stupid, inferior, and detrimental to her cause. Ann Romney is an SAHM, so Hilary drops her into this manufactured image and therefore claims Romney isn’t fit to speak on any issues whatsoever.

    What Hilary does in her bedroom at home doesn’t impact anything I’ve said above at all.

    Save the labels for when it matters. Right now, she’s an arrogant liberal slamming mothers for her dear Obama’s benefit. That’s all we need to say.

    • avgjo

      project onto liberals certain characteristics of our own. For instance, we tend to keep our private business, well, private.

      What happens in a liberal’s bedroom very often impacts their politics and consequently, you and me. That’s why the militant homosexual movement is not satisfied with being treated equally, but must force affirmation and approval from the rest of us through illegal tactics (such as threatening, vandalizing and worse their opponents) and law (hate crimes, etc.). That’s why so many lib women are nuts about abortion and birth control. they are bringing their bedroom business/habits into the public square.

      I could go on, but you get it.

      Identity politics is a narcissistic affair. Those engaged in it see everything through their identity, i.e., it’s their world and you’re just living in it, to borrow a phrase. That’s why I made the comment that it wouldn’t surprise me at all if her ‘identity’ had something to do with her comments. Sure, other people on that side could harbor the same resentment for SAHMs, arriving at the same conclusion through a different route (a militant feminist might resent them because they think it limits a woman’s potential), and we have to consider their personal issues with the topic at hand. I would have answered the question ‘does her radical feminism have anything to do with her comments’ nearly the same way.

      The bottom line is that if America is to ever be restored, we have to break the back of identity politics. And to do this, we have to move from the idea that these identities are mere ‘labels’, and that they are realities with concrete consequences in the real world. Doing this means accepting the connection between narccisistic identity worldviews and the specific positions they effect.

      • zachv

        For instance, we tend to keep our private business, well, private.

        No, we don’t avgjo. It’s hard for heterosexuals to grasp this, but all us out our sexual orientations day in and day out, whether we want to or not in the most inane and unavoidable situations you could ever possibly think of. It’s the reality of how we live our lives.

        Obviously I’m not talking about the physical sex, but rather how our entire behavior and life circumstances revolve around our partners and “what happens in the bedroom”. Whether I’m going to the company Christmas party, or going to the beach as a family, or going out to dinner on a date or even flippin’ writing a check (because I own a joint bank account), I am publicly declaring and demonstrating my sexual orientation. The same goes for you as well.

        Second, this might be surprising because I doubt you’ve ever thought about it, but it’s an incredibly hypocritical charge. Why do you get to wear a wedding band, but I don’t? How come you believe it’s perfectly alright for you to flaunt what occurs in bedroom in front of the rest of us by going on dates or signing a lease, but believe you I don’t get to do the same? You’re speaking out against a behavior that you actively partake in. It’s hypocritical and fallacious.

        … But to get back to this Rosen idiot. Her comments don’t have thing to do with her orientation, so why mention it? She’s a stupid liberal who sneers at mothers. End of story. It’s as analogous to Obama’s campaign paying women at a lesser salary and me screaming, “That’s because he’s heterosexual!!” It’s dumb and has nothing to do with Obama beyond the fact that he’s typical liberal.

        • aesthete

          More likely, it’s the explicit and in-your-face nature of much of the “gay rights” movement. There is no heterosexual equivalent to the spectacle of grown men accosting strangers and minors with choice parts of their anatomy, or sexual acts in full view of the public, as ostensibly political acts. I am of course referring to the many “gay pride” parades which feature just that kind of anti-social behavior.

          Personally, I’ve supported civil unions for all for some time, now, and I’ve never supported criminalizing sodomy — the presence of a few gays who behave badly doesn’t change my views in the slightest. That’s different from altogether pretending that the gay movement doesn’t have some seriously disturbing aspects to it, and bad actors within it.

          • zachv

            Then I agree. There’s a difference between ‘gay pride’, and the vulgarity that occurs in San Francisco. :/

        • avgjo

          A couple of points,

          Aesthete, as usual, saw the point.

          You’re making my point for me. When I see a wedding ring, to be honest, I don’t think about that person’s intimacy. (I really have no desire to.) I think about a commitment, a promise. And it’s not true that we live our sexual orientations day in and day out. Sure, you correctly cite some day-to-day examples of what could be seen as manifestations of sexuality. However, that depends again on whether you view everything through a sexual lens. When I see two guys come to a party, unless they are acting overtly ‘gay’, I don’t assume anything about their sexuality, because again, that is not something I am interested in. If I were a teller in a bank, and I saw two guy’s names on a bank account, I wouldn’t assume anything, either. It wouldn’t be my business as a teller what anyone does with an account, or how they handle their money, and the last thing my mind migrates toward is ‘hmm, what do they do in their private lives’.

          I hope it doesn’t anger you, but I’m going to risk it: you’re making a point that I often raise in this whole ‘gay’ debate. You’ve made it clear that your life revolves around an act. And I find it interesting, that most hetersexuals I know see a wedding ring as a symbol of commitment. The idiots in our ‘community’ who flaunt their sexuality, do so very crudely and embarrasingly.

          I am of mixed racial heritage. It’s funny, though. When I read something, when I go out and hang out with folks, in short, when I live my life, rarely do I think ‘Hmm, I’m of mixed heritage; how does that bear on this activity?’ Also, when I interact with people, unless there is a language barrier, rarely is race or nationality an issue. Religion only comes up as a practical or conversational necessity. I guess that’s the freedom that comes with living a life not bound by identity politics.

          Those who do, though, DO interpret things through that lens, and that’s why their identity does matter. Obama, as a legally black man (though only half-so by blood), through his association with Black Liberation Theology, very likely interprets history and experience through that lens. And as a result, it colors/distorts his policy decisions.

          • zachv

            But I think you err in that you’re misattributing the source of the mentality to being exclusive to a person rather than working in conjunction to being a reaction to the environment.

            Ringwise — when you and I both look at a ring, we both see it as a status of commitment. However we live in an environment that is still not accepting of same-sex marriage. Thus in addition to seeing a ring as a pledge of commitment, I am forced to see it as a defiant act because it upsets the established norms and has the potential to result in negative consequences (discrimination). Of course, that’s not my choice of interpretation, but it’s a reality of how my social environment views me and how I am forced to manipulate my mentality to avoid negative consequences.

            I think you can better understand why your point is faulty if you apply it to race. You bring up the point that when you live your life, you don’t think about how your heritage has any bearing on any activity. But you are not forced to.

            Put mixed-heritage into the perspective of the 1950s when you weren’t allowed to enter white-only grocery stores, or marry a white woman. In that environment, you have to walk on egg shells and fully understand how your heritage bears on any activity or action you undertake, because you could be hurt or thrown in jail if you walked into the wrong grocery store.

            You’re point applied to that situation, would be that that man has a (wrong) mentality of viewing everything through the lens of being a mixed heritage. He’s thinking is fallacious, because it solely focuses on race and thus colors/distorts his policy decisions.

            But, he’s not the one at fault. He’s being forced to view everything from a racial standpoint, because he’d be killed if he was seen walking down the street with a white woman! He’d be thrown in jail for walking into the wrong bar! He’s racially focused, because his environment is hostile towards those of mixed-heritage.

            Of course, that’s a hyperbole because LGBTs are not usually killed or jailed like racial minorities were, excluding the rare Matthew Shepard cases. But it still speaks as to how your point is faulty because it ignores the context of someone’s world view.

          • avgjo

            notice I said ‘rarely’. I am fairly dark, and I have, even recently, gotten rather rude treatment from a few idiots. There are places not far from home I know I should stay out of, for peace and safety’s sake. That said, the VAST majority of the people I meet all over (even in THOSE places – but a few bad apples spoil the bunch) are very friendly, polite and decent. I take the point of view that life’s too short to worry about the morons. Just as there are certain places I should stay out of, there are certain social circles I’m pretty sure I’d never be accepted in or taken seriously, because I didn’t go to a fancy prep school or because I wasn’t born in certain places or because I don’t have the right name, or hell, even because my mom’s Mexican or because my grandma was Jewish (because I HATE the race card so much, you don’t know how much it irked me to write that, even if it’s true). If I wanted to live like a victim, I imagine I could find all kinds of ‘reasons’ to do so. But like I said, life’s too short, and there’s too much to enjoy. I’ve made a conscious decision not to live my life viewed through the lens of my identity, or determined by the thoughts of others.

            I think my point might be clarified if I make a distinction. There is a difference between aware of characteristics that make you up that might be a problem to some people and living life as an identity politics victim. I am aware that my skin problem or heritage might make a tiny, tiny percentage of people (of all kinds of colors, btw) have a bad day. I file this awareness in the back of my mind, to pull up in an emergency. Otherwise, I just live my life, assuming that everyone I meet is a decent human being, made in God’s image like me, you and everyone else, and that, given the right opportunities, we could very well become true friends. The IP victim, on the other hand, assumes that every person they meet is potentially ugly, mean or hateful and that, if just one little thing goes wrong, they could very well become an enemy.

            I gotta get to bed. Respectful and spirited as always. Good night.

          • zachv

            Your point is clarified well, so I’ll have to state that I do agree with you. There is a difference between those who assume the best and the worst in everyone. :) Great discussion!

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …had pretty much no bearing whatsoever on the thoroughly dunderheaded statement that Rosen made, then kept making worse via ‘explanation’ and ‘apology.’ In other words, a straight liberal pundit would have said the exact same thing about a stay-at-home mom, and just as nastily.

    And, honestly? If you’re looking for something unsavory in Rosen’s personal life then you can pretty much stop at “former RIAA lobbyist.” I have gay friends. But I wouldn’t voluntarily stay in the same room as somebody who helped record companies come up with this strategy,

    • zachv

      I don’t know why, but I feel obligated to at least give some sort of a hat tip. There are still so many people that judge and treat you poorer for no other reason than you’re different. It’s frustrating and depressing.

  • Ned Reck

    There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can not defile yourself.

    Although we don’t like it… we need to stay outta private lives.

    Now I am not talking ’bout being against the “Defence of Marriage Act” which I strongly agree with, by the way.

    I am just talking about not seeing a person’s… skin-color… religion… sex… or sexual-orientation… when you look at somebody. That’s all…. they just do not matter when the votin’-time comes.

    Ned