So, last weekend Romney made a choice on who his running mate is going to be. I’ve been watching interestedly because I’m curious about whether the choice is going to be good or bad for his campaign. I mean, he’s been sliding in the polls.
I find it even more interesting that he chose another politician with a stay at home wife.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s wrong for a mother to stay home with her kids, if she can. I’d love to do it.
Unfortunately, I can’t. We have too many bills. My husband doesn’t make enough.
A lot of other mothers are in the same situation. They can’t afford to stay home with their kids. Instead, they have to work, the kids have to be in daycare. There are some women who can be home with their kids because they’re on Welfare, but many look down on those women. ‘They’re expecting hand-outs.’ As someone who BTDT, I disagree, they’re trying to provide for their families the best way they can. But I digress.
The question remains, does this show that these rich, white, middle aged men would know how to relate to those who aren’t white, aren’t men, aren’t rich – or even doing well enough financially to afford to have a parent stay home with the kids.
Religion doesn’t enter into the equation at this point. Not even the senate’s childish attitudes, the ‘I’m taking my toys and going home’ attitude because they’re not getting everything they want. No one gets everything they want, compromise is the only way to handle it. It’s both parties who have put our country in this position.
What is it they say? When you’re pointing fingers at someone else, you have 3 more pointing back at yourself. That goes for politics too.