Ann Romney made what is described as a rousing personal speech a day or two ago a Connecticut GOP dinner. Among her comments was the following statement about working women, which I can only conclude was a sheer cue card fumble... or evidence that she has not thought very hard about what she is saying:
Romney alluded to the fact that not all women can stay at home saying, "I love the fact that there are women out there who don't have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn't easy for any of us" [Andrew Kaczynski, "Ann Romney Seeks Sympathy in Stamford, Gets It," BuzzFeed: Politics, 2012.04.23].
I love the fact that there are women... who don't have a choice.... Readers, can you think of any way in which those words, as transcribed, can be interpreted positively?
While you, dear readers, hammer away at that nugget, I'd like to address a different passage from Ann Romney's address that strikes me as unbecoming a campaigner:
Romney told the audience at the Connecticut Republican Party's Prescott Bush Awards Dinner in Stamford of the exhausting nature of the campaign and the unfairness of the news cycle.
"It's such an emotionally draining thing that you go through. And the person that you're fighting for, that you love, that you cherish, you know that they are being maligned at times," Mrs. Romney said. "You know that they are being misrepresented at times and you know that they aren't getting the proper treatment at times" [Kaczynski, 201204.23].
I'll bet there are a lot of working women who would happily trade up to the Romneys' stress of having so much income ($21.7 million) that they could quit their jobs and travel the country talking to people about whatever they please. I'd take people talking smack about me in the press over not knowing if I can make the mortgage next month in an instant.
Spare me the plaintive cries over how "exhausting" it is to campaign. The Romneys as a family have made a choice (a choice very few people enjoy) to live in campaign mode for the last five years. The Romneys appear to be holding up just fine.
Real campaigners don't find this work exhausting. They thrive on it. They know they'll face opposition. They know they'll get hit with unfair attacks. True campaigners take the punches undaunted and hit back with truth and love for the fellow citizens they get to talk with and teach and be taught by.
Check your cue cards, Ann. Practice your speeches. And quit your whining.
Fair comment on the whining. By the way, you are quite good at remembering andlinking to old related threads, could you link me to your criticism of Michelle and her whining about how hard the campaign was on her and her family?
I know you are even-handed so this must be an oversight.
Mrs. Obama? If she says something has ludicrous as Romney's statement about working women in tandem with a plea for millionaire sympathy, I'll go there. Got examples?
But going there won't change the ill nature of Ann Romney's comments, oh master of distraction.
Someday a smile comes easy and someday the something is so funny you can't help yourself. Thanks for a guffaw.
The GOP is so very good at rudeness, diversion, and dwarf tossing warfare.
If only we Dems would just keep our hands out of our own pants, load the Romneys into some cosmic trebuchet, and fix the damned planet.
The key here is that the Romneys need to decide whether being a stay at home mom is a hard job or not... especially if you can't afford to hire people to help you do it. To date, they are tone deaf about being poor, even as we now have more US kids in poverty than at any time in our nation's history. If the Romney campaign doesn't distance itself from the radical right in the US Congress it's toast with the voters.
Meanwhile, you have the Obamas relating that they just finished paying their school loans off 8 years ago, and that when they first decided to be together, their combined debt put their balance sheet on the wrong side of zero, even as the Romneys relate that in order to make ends meet they had to sell off some of dad's stocks and settle for stitched together carpet remnants. Oh the misery.
Troy's right. It does get laughable sometimes.
It's not just the Republicans. It's almost every politician there is. They know by now that if they make up an event happening to them, they'll get called on it pretty quick, so instead, they rebrand the same events depending on the reaction they're expecting to get.
The main reason it's so egregious on the Republican side is that, even though almost all Politicians are quite well off, financially, the Republicans are even more so, so they need to rebrand more in order to connect with people.
The difference between the Romneys and the Obamas seems to be that the Obamas really have their act together on how they want to portray themselves. They (especially Barack, I expect) know exactly what the people want to see in them, and they show themselves that way. The Romneys, on the other hand, are still struggling to decide if they should portray themselves as elites, or hard-right Christians, or anything else, so they bounce around a lot more on issues.
http://mtcowgirl.com/2012/04/25/heavenly-polygamy
Carter, that's because Romney comes from a multilayered cultural background of secrecy, in both his secular and non-secular life. Mormons rarely discuss their belief system with non-Mormons. And corporate turnaround guys rarely discuss their turnaround plans publically.
Romney is used to operating on a "need to know" basis and hasn't yet figured out that "we the people" need to know. It's not enough for him to say the economy is bad and that he knows how to fix it, he needs to tell us how... and in the process explain why, if he's known the answer all along, he hasn't been willing to tell everybody.
What's American about that?
"I know how to fix the country, but you have to elect me before I'll tell you."
Personally, I never hire people who interview like that any more. Because every single time I listened to that pitch and hired the guy, he ended up being full of sh*t.
Bill,
Actually, I think Romney has been quite forthright. Romney has been criticized because of his 50 some specific proposals for the economy and job growth as being to everything (ambitious, specific, etc.).
But, in the big picture, as I said in another post, it begins with encouraging entrepreneurs to grow/invest.
The specifics need to be prioritized when Romney has two things at his disposal:
1) The power to negotiate with Congress and who is the leadership (I suspect a Romney win and GOP Senate will result in Reid being replaced and who that is has big repercussions). For instance, do you lead with reducing the reach of Fannie/Freddie, repeal of Dodd-Frank or attacking the big banks?
2) Knowledge of the biggest immediate problem. For instance last fall, it looked like housing was slightly recovering. Recently we just heard national home prices have dropped for the 6th month in a row. Debt:Equity of homes is actually worse today than when Obama took office (despite the principal payments, the value has dropped more).
Here is the reality:
1) Obama gave it his best shot and virtually nothing worked. Second terms are notorious for status quo. Plus, he has proposed nothing new. You criticize Romney for having no plans. What are Obama's? For years, we have heard him say "this year the priority is job creation" yet nothing proposed much less passed.
2) Romney has laid out an agenda. It is growth focused.
"The Fed's stay-the-course decision was approved on a 9-1 vote of the central bank's key policy panel, the Federal Open Market Committee, composed of Fed board members in Washington and five regional bank presidents." AP.
Okay, Troy, would you say this is a good place to start if you want to see Romney's plan for Jobs and the Economy? http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Troy: You really believe Romney is, at times, too specific?? Seriously??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/romneys-budget-doesnt-make-tough-choices/2012/04/25/gIQAMYdShT_blog.html
I have first hand experience with poverty, as do some others here. While the Romneys try to say some of the right words, it's so clear that they have no idea what real poverty is like. Apparently neither do most of the Repubs serving in elected offices around the country. Otherwise, they would not be able to promote, support, and vote for some of the cruel legislation they've offered.
DE, despite debates with Troy on the issue, I still hold to the idea than many, if not most, Republicans currently in office (especially in Washington) don't really care whether or not they have experience with poverty. They're in it for themselves and for the big corporations who support them, and couldn't care less if the little guy gets trampled on.
Of course, the same could be said of Democrats. I don't easily forget things like SOPA and PIPA.
Well neither has the Kennedys.
Yeah, but all the important Kennedys are dead. Unless I'm missing one or two. There are what? 50+ left?
One or two: RFK, Jr. is an Earth advocate and Caroline Kennedy threw out a first pitch at Fenway Park. They are movers and shakers in our party and have the ears of the First Family.
It's not impossible that Sec. Clinton will step down to rest, John Kerry become Secretary of State, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick appoint Ms. Kennedy to finish the term and Clinton returns as our Veep candidate.
Bill, while I hesitate to beat the Mormon horse too hard, you make a point about habitual secrecy ingrained into the Romney's from both of their main worldviews, religious and professional, that makes things kinda click. Both of the comments I highlight show at least an unfamiliarity with openness and consistent messaging. And in the midst of Troy's distraction, no one has explained to me how Ann's comments make any positive sense.
Speaking of stupid things said on the campaign trail.
I have been in 57 states with 1 left to go.
Or something like that.
I have posted this a couple of different times on Madville and defended him as suffering from campaign fatigue.
Tim, I think we all know the The Obamuslim was referring to the 57 Muslim states, and that he intends to forge an alliance between them to form one giant Muslim Nation that can take over the world with turbans.
Mrs. Romney is apparently suffering from MS. That can sap a person's energy and make things most of us do with ease into a major task.
Otherwise, her matter of choice is irrelevant. She hasn't had to make a tough choice in her whole life.
Leave the wives and kids alone. Mrs. Romney has suffered through cancer and survived. She has Multiple Sclerosis and battles those effects daily. She's a smart woman, hard working and terrific family values. In those three aspects, both she and Michelle Obama are similar and should be respected. Let the boys play, compare their records as leaders and begin the campaign for leader of the free world!
Oh no, Rod. At the point where Mrs. Romney enters the ring and portrays her views, her choices, and her story and as reasons to vote for her husband, she joins the game. Besides, Mrs. Obama hasn't said anything as patently insensitive as the comment at the top of the post.
Would it be out of line to ask Michelle and Ann what they think of the Senate vote on the Violence Against Women Act?
Would Ann agree with our own Senator Thune and most of the Republican Senators who voted against it?
Realistically, I would assume both Ann and Michelle would answer in agreement with their husbands' stances on the issue. It woudl be very unusual for the spouse of a politician to express views on major legeslation counter to what their parter is for, especially during a presidential race.
That wasn't fair. Let's ask the President and Mitt.
Obama would vote for the bill. Romney is a bit tougher, because he's been playing at being more socially conservative than he actually is, but historically he's still hasn't been exactly pro-women's rights, so I would guess that he'd be pretty likely to vote along Republican party lines, and vote against it.
But, I think it would be beneficial to ask them. Hopefully someone will pretty soon, here.