Dems reveal disdain for children

  There's been a great deal of guffawing lately over the Hilary Rosen comments about stay at home moms.
  Her comments, it's pretty obvious, are a planned part of a broadside against the Romneys, trying to make them look like they belong more in the 50s than 2012.
  Planned? Of course. Though many Dems have disavowed her comments, that's to be expected; they want to play both sides of the coin.
  At the same time, several Dems have come out to defend her remarks, thus bolstering the case being made that the Romneys' lifestyle choices are strictly 50s.
  The New York Post:

Rosen might not have realized she was insulting the 12 percent of stay-at-home moms who are also below the poverty line, but her comments showed a lack of understanding of the cost of child care, and the way taxes bite deep into that second income.

  Is it so bad to be a "throwback to the 50s"? There was a different mentality about families, then, that's for sure.
  But I think there's a really important element being lost in this argument.
  What about the kiddies those stay at home moms are tending?
  Do they not count?
  Why is it laudable for a woman to get paid to raise someone else's children but not if they're her own?
  Of course, as the article cited above points out, this is part of the division warfare the Obama campaign is waging.
  Pit stay at home moms against working outside the home moms. Neither of these choices is easy.
  But that Rosen would even imply that caring enough for your children to stay home with them, particularly in their formative years, is appalling.
  And also revealing. 
  For most people, it IS a sacrifice to choose to not receive outside pay. That choice means you forego lots of items that could make life much easier.
  But if most people were honest, they'd tell the truth that they COULD get by on much less. Fewer clothes, eating out less, fewer electronic trinkets.
  Sure, children are part of the Dem equation. They're on the list.
  But the (sometimes open) hostility many liberals show for children and their care, like how expensive they are, how much noise they make, how inconvenient they are, how messy they are, was revealed in Rosen's comments.
  I don't care if she adopted twins.
  You can't tell me those repeated comments this week weren't part of a larger plan.
  And more revealing of a larger problem with their thinking.
  And why shouldn't they have contempt for children? They have disdain for "Bible clingers", for "gun clingers", for Tea Partiers, for Down Syndrome children and their parents.
  And for parents who want to insulate their children from liberal academia
  Anybody who's not like them.
UPDATE: And there ya go.