Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey MSM! Why is Rachel Maddow the only one reporting this? (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Willard doesn't want to be President. (10+ / 0-)

    He just wants to be a candidate, like his dad.
    But, he wants to do it HIS way, opposite to how his dad lost.

    Poor Willard is conflicted. When he was in favor of prematurely terminating pregnancies, he cited his mom, falsely, and now that he's opposed, he's leaving his mom out.

    Willard's an opportunist and says whatever fits the occasion, according to his lights. He doesn't really care about anything.

    Lenore Romney was a candidate for the Senate in 1970. She obviously lived her beliefs, giving birth to her last child at the age of 39. Willard's brother Scott was born in 1941, before the war.  Willard came after. If she hadn't been pro-life, Willard probably wouldn't have been born. It's a thought that probably crossed Paul Ryan's mind as well.  His mother was 36 when he was born.  While that's more common now, even as late as 1970 it wasn't.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 11:50:03 PM PDT

    •  I don't think women stopped having children (12+ / 0-)

      until they were in their 40s before using hormonal birth control became prevalent.  I've been working on my family tree for a couple of years now, and back in the 1800s and through to the 1960s, women all over my tree gave birth to children when they were in their early forties. My maternal grandmother was 42 when she gave birth to the last of 10 children.

      For me, Mitt reminds me of Jeff Bridges in Starman. He's like an alien that hasn't read the entire manual. You know, he's going, "Nice to be in a place where the trees are the right size. -- Robin Williams on Letterman 26 Apr 2012

      by hungrycoyote on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 12:29:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many women died prematurely. (9+ / 0-)

        Life expectancy was much lower, not just because children died, but because women died in child-birth or soon after.  My grandmother had ten children; four survived to adulthood.  She died not long after her last was born and the household was managed by her eldest daughter, who never married. How well the children that did survive functioned is another matter. It's my guess that many of the cognitive difficulties we now identify and try to treat were just as prevalent in earlier generations, but went unnoticed. There's no question that some people are impoverished because they simply can't do for themselves.  If they're born into affluent clans with servants, their incompetence isn't noticed.  If they're born into "modest" circumstances, they're a drag on the clan. Even in the fifties, children born with fetal alcohol syndrome were placed in institutions where they languished until they died.  We have forgotten about all the orphanages that have been closed.  I know a man of ninety whose parents sent him and his siblings to the orphanage whenever their income fell.  He recalls his father bringing him presents and then taking the children home again.

        Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

        by hannah on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 01:59:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not in the 1950s-60s it wasn't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hungrycoyote, elwior, libnewsie

          I grew up in those decades and never knew of any woman dying in childbirth -- never. I'm sure it happened, just as it does now, but it was not something where you knew kids on the playground whose mother had just died.

          Before WWII, maybe. Before 1900, definitely.

          And in that era, nice Mormon and Catholic mothers did not have abortions, even for a late-in-life baby. Abortion was barely legal, and barely available -- I remember when New York legalized it in about 1970. Before that affluent women flew to the Dominican Republic, and there were some D&Cs that were probably covert abortions, but it really was not an available option.

      •  if you have a child in your late teens/early 20s (6+ / 0-)

        you are more likely to be able to conceive in your 40s.

        it is having a FIRST baby in your 30s that was unusual then, similar to having a first baby in your 40s would be now.

        getting pregnant in your 40s is not at all strange for a woman who has had previous pregnancies at a young age.

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
        Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

        by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 06:31:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Environment (42)
  • Elections (38)
  • Media (36)
  • Republicans (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Barack Obama (30)
  • Iraq (30)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Culture (28)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • LGBT (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site