Dana Loesch STILL falsely accusing the "Dems of starting the War on Moms"

Today, Big "Journalism" EIC Dana Loesch is STILL accusing the "Democrats of starting the 'War on Moms'" and covering to defend Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney.

On Big Government, she baselessly blamed the Democrats "for starting and owning the 'War on Moms.'"

In February of this year Hilary Rosen of the Obama-associated PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, was brought in to advise DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on public relations.

The following month the DNC Chair was warning of "Romney and the Republicans war on women." I'm not sure how Rosen can claim that the GOP made up a Democratic buzzword when it was her client who made it most famous. 

Rosen's close proximity to the Obama team is why David Axelrod and Jim Messina were so quick to toss her under the bus; their surrogates are working overtime to push as much distance between the President and Rosen as possible.
Rosen herself set the bar for how such attacks as hers are to be judged: In 2008 she condemned such attacks on Michelle Obama. 

Democrats have been throwing up every deflection they can to keep voters's eyes off the record-high, worse-than-Carter gas prices, the sluggish economy, and scandals like Fast and Furious and Solyndra. With so many narratives in the air, they were bound to mess up the storyline. 

Loesch continues lying her butt off with this next post on Big Journalism:

The blowback from Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen's remarks against stay-at-home moms reached a fever pitch this morning, kicking the Obama campaign into massive damage control mode. Last night David Axelrod and Jim Messina threw Rosen under the bus--and this afternoon Michelle Obama joined them. 

If equality were the issue, the First Lady would not have gone on Dave Letterman's show (he never apologized for calling Palin a "slutty flight attendant"); the Obama Super PAC would have returned the $1 million from Bill Maher, who called Palin a "twat" on television and a "cunt" on stage. 

Dana, you and your surrogates on the right have lost, plain and simple.

According to Ryan Grim and Amanda Terkel at the Huffington Post, raising children is technically "work," but does NOT cover the work requirements.

WASHINGTON -- Ann Romney maybelieve that focusing exclusively on raising children counts as work, and the majority of A mericans may agree with her, but that's not how the federal government sees it.

As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, if you're poor, deciding to stay at home and rear your children is not an option. Thanks to welfare reform, recipients of federal benefits must prove to a caseworker that they have performed, over the course of a week, a certain number of hours of "work activity." That number changes from state to state, and each state has discretion as to how narrowly work is defined, but federal law lists 12 broad categories that are covered.
Raising children is not among them 

.
According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report, the dozen activities that fulfill the work requirement are:
(1) unsubsidized employment
(2) subsidized private sector employment
(3) subsidized public sector employment
(4) work experience
(5) on-the-job training
(6) job search and job readiness assistance
(7) community services programs
(8) vocational educational training
(9) job skills training directly related to employment
(10) education directly related to employment (for those without a high school degree or equivalent)
(11) satisfactory attendance at a secondary school
(12) provision of child care to a participant of a community service program 

The only child-care related activity on the list is the last one, which would allow someone to care for someone else's child if that person were off volunteering. But lest beneficiaries get carried away with their charitable activity, it does not apply to married couples in some states. Connecticut, for instance, specifically prevents counting as "work" an instance in which one parent watches a child while the other parent volunteers.

Regardless of their political affiliations, raising children is an admirable thing.


Michelle Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, both of whom that Loesch criticizes on a regular basis, have condemned Rosen's remarks.

Disappointed in @hilaryr 's comments. As a mother of 3 there’s no doubt that raising children is work.
— D Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) April 12, 2012

Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected. –mo
— Michelle Obama (@MichelleObama) April 12, 2012

UPDATE: Hilary Rosen will appear on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer to discuss her apology to Ann Romney. And Rosen has more dignity than the Righties that are smearing her for telling the truth about Ann and Mitt Romney.

Loesch falsely trumpets the "Democrats have declared war on [conservative] mothers"

In her four blogposts tonight on on Big Journalism repeating the same garbage about baselessly accuses the Democratic Party of waging a war on women and moms," Dana Loesch digs an even deeper hole for herself.

In one of those blogposts, Loesch falsely accuses the "Dems of starting the 'War On Women' and the 'War on [conservative] Moms'."

Yes, there is something old-fashioned about the belief that a homemaker couldn't understand the complexity of the economics affecting her household. Rosen apparently subscribes to the Linda Hirschman worldview, one that posits women are only as valuable as their contributions outside the home, unrelated to children and family. Rearing up the next generation that will someday run the world is woefully under appreciated.  

From an overflow of the heart the mouth speaks and Rosen makes it clear that her prejudice against women who stay home stems from a lack of respect and appreciate for what those women do. If the goal of feminism is choice, Rosen betrays the mutual respect amongst members of the female sex by degrading the choices of other women. 

We know Loesch is lying off her patootie. But wait, there's more lies to come from her.

In yet another blogpost on Big Journalism, she misleads the readers into believing that the "Democrats hate stay-at-home moms," which is baloney.

Democrats fabricated this narrative and they and their surrogates continue to perpetuate it in the media. Women are only as valuable for as long as they can be used to corral votes -- nothing is more evident of this then by claiming the GOP is waging a "war on women" while simultaneously insulting women who choose to stay home. 

The War On Women is NOT fabricated by the Democratic Party at all. It's real, and the Republicans (including you, Ms. Loesch) are perpetrating the War on Women.


Hilary Rosen wrote the truth about Ann Romney in the Huffington Post:

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.

Now let's be clear on one thing. I have no judgements about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today.

I have nothing against Ann Romney. She seems like a nice lady who has raised nice boys, struggled with illness, and handles its long-term effects with grace and dignity. I admire her grit in talking about her illness publicly.

Rosen was criticized by certain members of the Obama 2012 campaign team for her comments.

I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.
— Jim Messina (@Messina2012) April 12, 2012

Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney.They were inappropriate and offensive.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 12, 2012

In her fourth blogpost on this topic, she is now distorting what Rosen said:

Hilary Rosen doubled down on the Democrats "War On Moms" at the Huffington Post. Rosen can't seem to keep her narratives straight: Ann Romney is either an unintellectual homemaker too stupid to understand economics or a powerful force behind which Mitt Romney hides:

Women of America must ask Mitt Romney to come out from behind his wife's skirt and tell us working women in this country should trust his vision for their future.

Ann Romney wasn't speaking of working women alone, but the idea that Romney isn't a "working" women because her work is as a mother and homemaker is ludicrous. 

I'd ask why Rosen is ignoring President Obama's pay inequality in his own administration but then remind myself that she can't: Rosen works at the PR firm run by Obama's former communications director Anita Dunn. The firm is heavily involved in the Obama campaign. It's her job to deflect from his failures. 

Rosen also rejects that any workplace inequality is the direct result of women's own choices, something studies already confirmed. It's an interesting position Rosen takes: she holds no regard for women's choices that don't match her own and she wants to blame men for those choices that women make.

Loesch has lost this war, bottom line.