While Mrs. Romney has had it easier than a lot of stay at home moms, the connection wasn't lost that this liberal commentator and lobbyist with ties to the Democratic Party was making; that stay at home moms could hardly be consulted on the economy since they don't have a "real" job. The connection might have been more difficult to draw if it didn't have the history among some that a woman choosing the more traditional role of stay at home mom is somehow betraying the cause of feminism.
Having made the "War on Women" now a little too messy to continue with, the administration swiftly distanced themselves from Ms. Rosen's remarks and moved on to the next distraction. The war of the week this week is right out of the Occupy Wall Street playbook. That's right folks, it's the "War on the Poor and the Middle Class". Instead of working on initiatives that would actually help the working class, in a blatant demonstration of campaigning instead of problem solving; the administration is pushing "The Buffet Rule", an idea that has zero chance of being enacted, and if it could be, would accomplish nothing. Even the President and our own Chuck Schumer admit that the idea is less a solution than a way to "get us moving in the right direction", or in Schumer's words "You've got to start somewhere". Sounds a little like how we got income taxes in the first place, by convincing the public that this will only apply to the rich. One way or another it always trickles down to the rest of us.
The complexity of the tax code exists because the government desires to use it not only to generate funding, but also as a tool for social engineering. The Fair Tax, or some other form of consumption tax would automatically be fairer, if that was really what we were after, since rich people do so much more consuming; but a consumption tax is hard to use to manipulate the public. Behavioral Psychology teaches us that behaviors that are reinforced increase, and behaviors that are not reinforced, or are negatively reinforced, decrease. If we punish investment with heavy taxes, investment will decrease; that's why the tax break is there, to encourage the rich to earn income via investment as a catalyst to the economy... is this a good time to be slowing down the economy?
IMHO: Children tend to be inordinately concerned with what is fair or not fair. Adults have learned that real life is seldom fair, and so they concern themselves with what works. Of course, when things don't work, even adults tend to perseverate on how unfair life is! Appealing to class envy is a low and futile avenue to pursue. It is naive to contend that because one man's piece of the pie is bigger, that somehow that makes yours smaller; and that if somehow you could decrease the size of his piece, that your piece would at least seem bigger... the economy is not a pie; we need to grow up and stop worrying about pie! The rich are rich even in socialist countries, and the most successful income redistribution nations are in totalitarian regimes where everyone is poor except those in charge. The rich always find a way to stay rich, and laws to impoverish the rich generally fall hardest on the middle class. There are two ways to get a rich man's money; one is to provide him with a good or service whereby he is willing to voluntarily give you some of his riches, often repeatedly. The other way is to rob him... it shouldn't surprise us if he proves uncooperative in this.
Since the "War on Women" kind of fizzled, a new red herring has been introduced. If this one doesn't resonate, I'm sure there's a whole list somewhere that will take us through the election with talking points instead of effective government. Both of these issues will return in various iterations, because apparently there are large blocks of voters these diversions appeal to. Maybe one day we will all grow up and real issues and real solutions will rule the day; in the mean-time, we tilt at wind mills and swim with red herrings.