PLANK AUGUST 29, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
TAMPA—Ann Romney got a very warm reception inside the convention hall here Tuesday night. And, after a shaky start, she gave as good a speech as the Romney campaign could probably expect of her—political spouses deserve to be scored on a generous curve when it comes to giving high-pressure, prime-time speeches, a feature of our system that strikes me as beyond the call of duty. “You can trust Mitt,” she told us over and over, implicitly comparing the nation to the 15-year-old girl she was when Mitt gave her a ride home from the night they met. It was a rather odd analogy—will he kiss us on the second date?—but it clearly was deemed necessary in the service of “humanizing” her husband, the utmost priority for this convention week. (Never mind the inconvenient remark made earlier in the day at a Pennsylvania delegation breakfast I attended by GOP pollster Frank Luntz, ostensibly in reference to Al Gore: “If you have to assert you are human, there’s no way you are going to be elected.”)
But it strikes me as unlikely that Ann Romney will be able to shoulder the load of making her husband more personally appealing to the electorate. Why? Because Ann Romney is not exactly the ideal messenger herself. Ever since Mitt Romney arrived on the national stage six years ago, there has been an assumption in the press corps and punditocracy that she is vastly more natural and down-to-earth than her husband. But it’s not hard to be more at ease on the stump than a man who likes to recite “America the Beautiful” and looked visibly uncomfortable simply standing and looking on after his arrival here tonight; Ann Romney’s relative superiority on this score has been inflated into an absolute claim to her personal appeal that I suspect is overstated with many voters.
The Atlantic’s Molly Ball already touched on one aspect of the real Ann Romney: a notable hardness that makes her an unlikely candidate for the work of softening Mitt.
Watching Ann Romney on the political stage, what she projects is not “softness” at all but a tough, hard-edged, even aggressive attitude. During her husband’s last campaign, “there were times when I wanted to like come out of my seat and clock somebody,” she mused on Fox a couple of years ago, according to an excellent profile in the Los Angeles Times. Earlier this year, she joked that she could “just strangle” the press sometimes. These aren’t serious threats of physical violence, but they reveal a combative side to her personality that’s at odds with the sweet, nurturing, maternal caricature.
Back in April, when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen called her resume into question, Romney told a guests at a fundraiser that she relished the opportunity to defend her family. “That was a really defining moment, and I loved it,” she said. Far from playing the poor, injured martyr, she appears to enjoy a fight. In interviews, she’s more likely to push back than demur when pushed on issues like her family’s tax returns. “Have you seen how we’re attacked? Have you seen what’s happened?” she said to such a question on NBC earlier this month. “We have been very transparent to what’s legally required of us. But the more we release, the more we get attacked.”
That hardness came through at several moments in her big speech—when she declared that her husband "was not handed success—he built it!” which she followed with a short, sharp laugh, a knowing play on the night’s thematic broadside against Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark; and when she launched into her rebuttal of the Democrats attacks on “success”—“Do we want to raise our children to be afraid of success?” she said with an astringent glare.
Such hardness in and of itself is not necessarily a problem—it suggests a serious person who sticks up for herself and the person she’s advocating for. (Michelle Obama of course has her own sharp edges, which have come under far more scrutiny than Ann Romney’s.) But in Ann Romney’s case, the hardness is more potentially off-putting when brought together with another feature that Ball did not delve into: the entitlement problem. Simply put, Mitt Romney is not alone in his tone-deafness as a very wealthy person in an era of gaping inequality. Consider just a few highlights from the other Romney, the one who is, as Haley Barbour quipped this week, a “known equestrian”:
Speaking in 1994 about how she and Mitt got by during his grad school years in Boston, when they “had no income except the stock we were chipping away at”:
Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year—it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.
One blogger did the math and figured out that stocks that were worth a “few thousand” dollars when bought but had gone up by a factor of 16 meant that the young couple was getting by by “chipping away at” assets of $60,000 (about $377,000 today). The chiding Ann Romney has gotten for these recollections did not stop her from replaying them in the Tampa speech, in which she reminisced about how she and Mitt “got married and moved into a basement apartment,” “ate a lot of pasta and tuna” and used a door propped on blocks as their desk.
There was the attempt earlier this year to downplay her good fortune:
Mitt Romney may have more money than any other presidential candidate in the race, but his wife said today that she does not consider herself wealthy. “We can be poor in spirit, and I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing,” Ann Romney said in an interview on Fox News. “It can be here today and gone tomorrow.”
There was her declaration that it was time for the Obamas to pack up in the White House:
“I believe it’s Mitt's time. I believe the country needs the kind of leadership he’s going to offer… So I think it’s our turn now,” Ann Romney said.
There was her response a few months ago when pressed about why her husband won’t release more than a year and a half of tax returns:
“We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life.”
Even when it comes to discussing the aspect of her life where she has dealt with serious adversity—her health—Ann Romney has at times lacked in self-awareness, as David von Drehle noted in a sensitive new profile of her for Time which gets into the fact that Romney has benefited from treatments (including her horse-riding) that most multiple sclerosis sufferers simply cannot afford:
MS drug therapy is a touchy subject in countries around the world because the medicines are extremely expensive—starting above $3,000 per month and rising steeply for drugs that must be infused intravenously. And they only slow the disease; they don’t cure it. As a result, access is uneven. Single-payer systems, like Britain’s National Health Service, have been resistant to covering the treatments, and some U.S. insurers put a lifetime cap on the amount that patients can spend on the drugs. In a 2011 interview with Parade, Romney advised her fellow MS patients “to get on medications because the medications now are so effective in reducing symptoms.” A more explicit discussion could entangle her in the thorny debate over health care spending.
And this brings us to the other potential limit to the appeal Ann Romney holds for the middle and working class swing voters that the campaign is still trying to win over. She is trying to connect from a position of noblesse oblige. But she and her husband are strikingly defensive about their noblesse—any questions about Mitt Romney’s outsized riches from Bain are an attack on his hard work and initiative, which sweeps aside the reality of his no-risk start at Bain Capital, and the tax loopholes he and Bain have benefited from, and the collateral damage of all those workers at the Bain investments that didn’t work out, from which he and his colleagues nonetheless profited. The humility of George Romney, who built his fortune from scratch, has morphed in the next generation into a not-always-suppressed self-satisfaction.
And the ticket Ann Romney is pitching for shows awful little signs of oblige. Possibly her biggest applause line in the hall was when she declared that Mitt “doesn’t like to talk about how he’s helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point,” which led into a mention of Romney’s generous tithing. But the country is not the Romneys’ church; we don’t have access to the huge LDS food warehouse in Utah. Instead, the Romney-Ryan plan makes clear that the the country’s food bank for tough times is going to shrink—literally so, in the case of deep cuts in food stamps—to pay for big tax cuts for the country’s wealthiest, including the Romneys. The country does not need to know that Mitt Romney can be trusted to drive home the pretty girl he’s identified as an excellent candidate for life partner; it needs to know that he gives a damn about the rest of us, including, and especially, those of us who are not on their face such a promising investment opportunity.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
59 comments
Lady Ann ... or Lady Romney ... which nickname sounds better?
- NateG
August 29, 2012 at 2:08am
Princess Ann?
- NateG
August 29, 2012 at 2:09am
As long as it isn't "First Lady of The United States."
- Sophia
August 29, 2012 at 2:33am
Yes, life is indeed tough when you have to scrape by on the 16-fold increased value of the stock your hubby's daddy gave him. Makes me nostalgic for Laura Bush.
- Thunderroad
August 29, 2012 at 3:31am
I think this critique of AR's speech is tendentious. The guy who wrote it has different eyes and ears than I when it comes to her speech but I feel no need to let my political preferences bend my objectivity. I thought it was an effective speech that worked toward accomplishing its purpose. His wife ultimately cannot make Romney seem more human or likable: only he can do that to the extent he has to. (That need may be overrated.) But to me, in any event, AR came across, for all her obvious wealth and privilege, as down to earth, affecting and natural. I saw the "hardness" this critique goes on about, when its not wandering around, away from the actual speech, as her resilient toughness. She made it dramatically felt in an emotionally compelling way that America is at a cross roads and needs to do better and that the man she loves and knows is the right man for the job. Not an analysis I'd necessarily agree with or a prescription I'd necessarily follow, but for the moments of her speech I felt myself moved by its and Ann Romney's considerable appeal. I suggest that mine is the reaction more likely to be found in those who saw and heard it without the need to discount it a priori.
- basman
August 29, 2012 at 5:24am
thanks basman. I did not watch Ann Romney's speech, but, from the bits of her I have heard and seen, I would tend to think those 'hard edges' come from confidence, and Alex's takeaway is blatantly partisan, which seems the new tnr brand. I guess the only rich blondes that get a pass here are those running for the Senate as Democrats? Face it, all pretty blondes grow up knowing they can get most of what they want. Oops - did I just make a stereotype "blonde joke"? I did run through the fifty richest members of Congress published last week at The Hill. Had no idea that McCaskill married money, as did Blumenthal and Wyden - but at least Ron Wyden had the sense to marry the daughter of the owner of the Strand bookstore in Manhattan - wealth measured by used book inventories. My opinion of Blumenthal sank when I learned he married Manhattan real estate. While I did not keep score, there was a trend that the richest Dems money mostly came from private equity and hedge funds. On the GOP side, seems car dealerships can create wealth.
- K2K
August 29, 2012 at 7:36am
Finally, someone honestly assessing St. Ann's speech and shockingly, it was a person with a uterus who authored it. For supposedly being marketing guys, these GOPers surely do not know their audience. To use someone to enhance the perception of another, the intended audience must first identify with the spokesperson. We don't know Ann, or like her or, or emulate her in almost any way, anymore than we like or respect most of the other prominent female GOPers: Sarah, Michelle, Nikki....always with 2 ks and an i......., anyone? These three appear from demographics to be much closer to a typical female's reality than Ann Romney even knows exist, and we don't like or trust them either. We are not stupid or easily deluded by vapid romance chatter. In fact, we are now the simultaneous breadwinners and child and parental caregivers in most US households, and are graduating from colleges and graduate schools in ever-increasing numbers. White male GOPers can tell us ladies what we like till the cows come home to cook dinner for the sofa-riding bulls after birthing a calf and mowing the fields all day..........but we do not like their brand of dogfood, and did I mention we do the shopping as well? In November, GOPers will learn that they should not keep sticking their greased palms down our collective pants, as well.
- smabry03
August 29, 2012 at 7:57am
I didn't see her speech, but I heard it while driving in it's entirety. I found it to be, frankly, peurile - yes, a bit combative, but combative in defense of an idea that is totally divorced from the reality that 90% of women (whom were clearly and explicitly the target audience) and men. I've been dirt poor (growing up, sleeping 4 to a bed, cause that's all the room there was), working poor (raising a family on barely-above-poverty-level incomes, when an ordinary car breakdown in our 15 year old ride, or the co-pays and deductibles from an accidental broken bone from play, could mean months or years of further belt tightening just to stay afloat), and I've been at the high reaches of the middle class, able to live comfortably on 20% of our income, and save or blow the rest. There is a gulf between those experiences that those who haven't been poor or working b class can't begin to imagine. Ann Romney clearly doesn't get it - when she says "we are just like you" (which she did, at least once), she's sounds like an adolescent trying to get into "the" group - simultaneously pugnacious and pleading. What she does not sound is genuine, because she's not. She evidently has no idea what it is to be most Americans, and that came through loud and clear last night.
- IowaBeauty
August 29, 2012 at 9:04am
The adoring wife - yuck! The more I see and hear of Lady Ann, the more I dislike her. And she's done that all on her own.
- Claris
August 29, 2012 at 9:27am
"Mitt Romney does not fail at what he undertakes." Do you mean like the time he ran against Ted Kennedy and lost? How about the time in 2008 when he ran and lost to McCain? And his one term as Governor was so poor he did not even bother to try to run for re-election. Yes, he passed one piece of legislation (which he now disavows) but his only term in office was an overall fail. But ok, he made lots of money, but so has many, many other people, so far there is no connecting that to me. Still in all she was more polished than I expected (though her whole women pander was idiotic, both condescending to women and insulting to men). Christie yelled too much, did he smile once? And what hard truths has he given us? What are the specifics? And lord did he talk a lot about NJ. Personally though she missed a huge chance, though it might have been attacked as cynical she should have relayed the story of when she found out she has MS and what MS means and how supportive he was, but there was nothing but treacle.
- blackton
August 29, 2012 at 9:43am
"The guy who wrote it has different eyes and ears than I when it comes to her speech but I feel no need to let my political preferences bend my objectivity." I was laughing too hard to continue reading this comment.
- cspencef
August 29, 2012 at 9:52am
"needs to know that he gives a damn about the rest of us" -- exactly. And all this touch-feely "He's a nice guy, you can trust him" eyewash simply avoids the issue that he's attacking women's access to abortion, he's attacking the New Deal, he's proposing to FURTHER cut taxes in a time of enormous deficits, and he's proposing to repeat the Bush-II mistakes of Supply-Side stimulus combined with further deregulation. Not to mention repealing the ACA, and perhaps appointing that next conservative judge to the Supreme Court. Romney and the Tea-Party Republicans are a disaster waiting to happen, not because they're not "nice guys", but because their policies are destructive to America and they're too stupid to realize that.
- AllanL5
August 29, 2012 at 9:56am
It's Anne Romney, ironically enough, who fits the stereotype of the Angry Black Woman.
- miceelf
August 29, 2012 at 10:08am
Imagine you're a struggling young bride making do for a desk with a door and some blocks. Now imagine that, every moment of every day, you're only one phone call away from a rich and famous father-in-law who can bail you out of any jam you might get into, be it loss of a job, kids' illnesses, you name it. It made sleeping at night a lot easier for Ann and Mitt Romney. Sure wish I had the same situation when my wife and I were just getting started. How about you?
- Mikelawyr22
August 29, 2012 at 10:27am
Yes, Ann Romney came across as human, but it didn't help the candidate. The stark contrast between her and Robot Mitt was a reminder of why he is so unlikable and creepy. Ann does have one thing in common with her hubby--she's a mega-rich member of the privileged class who has no clue about how most Americans live.
- heppner52
August 29, 2012 at 10:36am
The New Republic is an excellent magazine or periodical. So are Harpers, Atlantic, The New York Review of Books, New Yorker, and National Review. It seems to me that the New Republic should not be spending time on Ann Romney. She, like Michelle Obama, is an attractive, intelligent, and courageous woman. They, naturally, are working and rooting for their husbands to succeed. At that task, they have been successful. They also appear to be good mothers and wives and have raised their children well. My suggestion is that more time should be spent discussing world history, religion, American history, politics, and culture, ethics, and philosophy. This piece was a trifle, and not worthy of the limited time we have to read.
- john336
August 29, 2012 at 10:49am
New Republic has lost its way, as has the republic - your message is further proof. Stewardship is the issue at this point in history. The President seeks to dismantle the foundations of America - he has zero regard for the ideas behind the Constitution. He wants European welfare socialism to come to the U.S. so he can earn the love of humanity; but they do not and will not love him or us - just like Putin does not love him, and does what is best for Putin. Romney - as his wife told us - believes in and understands stewardship in a competitive world; a bright fifteen-year old will recognize it in another person: someone strong and that you can trust with your life, children and future. The resources that have been bestowed on US are for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. In case you have forgotten, its a cruel, competitive world; but, the President will give away everything owned by all other Americans in order that he be loved by the world (he will have his billion, like Clinton, so he will not be giving his money away). Do you think China will give us welfare when we run out of food(stamps) or will China treat US like a vassal state. You think they will be nice to us? Get it?
- dmking316b
August 29, 2012 at 11:13am
Alec, your review is a little harsh, primarily because it won't matter much what people think of Ann Romney. It's all about Mitt. And on that score, I thought Ann didn't help her husband. She seemed to hide Mitt in her own life story, which while nice (and missing critical details), was not really about Mitt. For example, I found it striking that she never poked fun at Mitt for something he does at home. She never said he had flaws or was imperfect--exactly what we need to hear to think someone is recognizably like us. In other words, it was a portrait of a statue. Plus, I found it offensive the degree to which Ann claimed special status for mothers and wives, how the burden of the world is on them. As a devoted family man, I'm offended that she placed men as less important creatures who don't really do the hard work. I know there were political necessities to that line of argument, but it doesn't excuse it.
- polcereal
August 29, 2012 at 11:25am
Why would anyone assume that, just because she's married to him, she can "humanize" Romney? Somewhat undermining that, in my experience, is that I've me quite a few unpleasant women that make you think "there must be something about her if that guy married her!" Neither "humanizing" nor indeed humanity is just a female attribute.
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 11:38am
Romney - a classical American. No doubt with a solid character. Obama - a needy American. Threw many supporters under the bus. Let us go for the safe leader: Romney
- sf4200
August 29, 2012 at 11:43am
Scientific studies allegedly have determined that a detectable smell, an odour, is involuntarily given off by a person when that person is lying. Last night, that smell, that aura was detectable at a high level when Mrs Romney generously shared her icebound personality with America. One could not but sense that one was watching a failed, untrained con artist, a typical bourgeoisie phony, unfeeling, a woman who had never known and will never know the press of poverty, the night time stale breath of unremitting failure, all the Hell that her husband and his class have brought to the millions upon millions of broken men spun out by the Republican Party's heartless greed for money. If the wives and children of those men had been present when Mrs Romney spoke, their outcry would have driven her out of the hall and into the unrelenting storm their lives have become. Harry Reynolds, Scarsdale, NY
- CHEKHOV
August 29, 2012 at 11:52am
dmking316b Spare me the hyperbolic b.s. Obama "seeks to dismantle the foundations of America(!?)." I guess congress is gioing to help with that project. And didn't Dubya's administrain start with a surpluse and for cast surpluses as far as the eye could see. A star reversal of the previous 30+ years? The bond market was agitated because the Treasury announced it may stop bond sales. Where did the money go? What happened to the projected surpluses? Which party in power abolished Pay-go? Hint: G-O-P. Remember those rules? They were in place between 1990 and 2002. The democrats acceded to GOP wishes and imposed those rules and lo and behold the part of Dick ("deficits don't matter") Cheney prompty threw them overboard and added a new, costly, SOCIALIST prescription drug plan to SOCIALIST Medicare and placed it on the USTRES-EX card. Two wars --one of choice--were also charged to the precious posterity the GOP is always babbling out. Where were the pitchforks? Where were the tea-baggers? Where? Where? Where? I know I read a cover of the Weekly Standard entitled "Big Government Conservatism" and gues what? Not a tea bagger to be found. But the minute a BLACK DEMOCRAT is elected. All the chicken little, sky is falling idiots emerge from the mud. I asked a tea bagger fan at my job why the baggers, et al didn't complain in 8 years he said it took them that long to get angry. To which I promptly responded: F**k you!! I guess his bible study class the 8th commandment doesn't cover lying.
- tec619
August 29, 2012 at 11:52am
Basman has it right on all accounts. Only those who are predisposed to not liking Ann Romney or her message or her husband could think that she did not hit it out of the park last night.
- SSciaretta
August 29, 2012 at 11:52am
In any case, Americans don't elect a first lady, they elect a president, and they are reasonably tolerant about what they might get as part of the package.
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 12:37pm
Ann Romney wants her husband to be President of the United States. Does she think he is a kind, hard working, lovable and charitable person who will cut his own tax rate even if means more debt or hurts the country, disregard the concerns of the underprivileged, rely on dishonesty to attain the presidency, place his assets overseas, not disclose his tax returns for fear we will learn something, or knock a kid down to cut his hair? Probably.
- Nusholtz
August 29, 2012 at 12:44pm
Of course, what basman said. What a coterie of sourpusses who can't transcend their own political prejudices or pause for a second to ask themselves the meaning of such rage against a graceful woman who made a very effective speech last night. I'm reminded of the same kind of baleful comments and jokes being made about Teresa Heinz Kerry, but from the other side (on the now long defunct Charlie Rose message boards). I thought she hit the nail right on its head when she reminded people about the malice concealed in describing her life as being "picturebook" with her having to live through breast cancer and with MS.
- noga1
August 29, 2012 at 1:21pm
I didn't actually listen to Ann Romney's speech--the only way I can stand to watch a Republican convention is with the sound muted--but her appearance did not say "Someone to whom working class women can relate" to me. Too blonde, too perfectly dressed and made up, too Stepford-wife looking, and as was noted, a little too hard-edged. Of course, I'm a disheveled brunette myself, so maybe it's just sour grapes...
- VAliberal
August 29, 2012 at 1:52pm
I think you're making a somewhat narrow-gauge point, Noga. It's not that we're all blindly attacking Ann Romney (R) for the same reasons that we defended Theresa Heinz Kerry (D). Just speaking personally here, I always thought well of Laura Bush and, whatever her particular views, saw her as a woman from an ordinary background obviously able to connect with people. I didn't see the speech, in any case, I've just read quotes from it.
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 2:11pm
Footnote: Romney's personality problem is, in any case, his own creepy squareness and utterly hollow laugh, not his wife.
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 2:12pm
I see the periodic invasion of right-wing 'commenters' out of the blue is showing up again. The RNC or some other right-wing front must buy up a few TNR subscriptions every so often to plaster BS on the TNR boards. Their programmers seem pretty inept too with the comments they code. Give me Herr Rat, he's crude, cuel and direct but entertaining.
- tmmats
August 29, 2012 at 2:38pm
tnmats, is that an attempt to merge "cool" and "cruel"
- miceelf
August 29, 2012 at 2:49pm
"I thought she hit the nail right on its head when she reminded people about the malice concealed in describing her life as being "picturebook" with her having to live through breast cancer and with MS." She lived through some tough diseases; so have others. I know some who have had it as bad or worse and didn't make it. Having the finances the Romenys have made it much, much easier as Jon Cohn has documented a few months ago regarding Mrs. Romney's MS. Most don't have her virtual infinite financial resources to handle it, in one case a family I know was driven into bankruptcy due to medical bills (and they had insurance). If you want to see what is real hardship, here's a few examples: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/medicaid-health-care_n_1835101.html By comparison, it has been "picturebook" for Mrs. Romney. All I hear and see from the GOP is malice towards those who don't have it so well or need help.
- tmmats
August 29, 2012 at 3:00pm
Miceelf it's a misprint. I meant "cruel". I sure wish these TNR boards had an edit feature after posting (like nearly every other BB I frequent).
- tmmats
August 29, 2012 at 3:02pm
What an idiot (tmmmwhatever). ironyroad: Romney's personality is rather flat and unimpressive and he has an unfortunate kind of inane laughter (TonyBlairesque). I'm sure that is a persuasive reason not to vote for him. Did you ever notice Hilary Clinton's maniacal laughter when she was a candidate, or commented on her flat personality? Anne Romney made a big splash when she turned to the women and told them pointedly: You are the best of America. She will be remembered for that.
- noga1
August 29, 2012 at 3:04pm
"Did you ever notice Hilary Clinton's maniacal laughter when she was a candidate, or commented on her flat personality?" Oh no -- I'm too chivalrous for something like that. :)
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 3:10pm
I know public speaking can be difficult for a lot of people. I know Ann Romney is not running for office herself, and I wouldn't mean to berate a person whose job does not include speechifying, but I found it incredibly laughably awkward when she exclaimed, "I love you, women!" It was as though she recalled Mitt's lead PR campaign guy from rehearsals earlier that day saying, "Ok, remember, you're supposed to be helping us with the female vote. You have to convey that you especially love American women, ok? Keyword is 'women' and 'love,' in case you have to fall back on that theme in interviews later, ok?" So then she got out there onstage, had a Bushian moment of blank-mindedness, and blurted out "I love you, women!" as the closest thing to a coherent talking point she could muster in the instant. I was embarrassed for her and for the obviousness of the pandering strategy on display. Honestly, it reminded me of a hilarious bit from Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gId6nrMDmUU
- Konstantin
August 29, 2012 at 3:13pm
"He [Obama] wants European welfare socialism to come to the U.S. so he can earn the love of humanity; but they do not and will not love him or us - just like Putin does not love him, and does what is best for Putin." dmking316b, Like almost everyone on the Right, you have no idea what socialism is. Socialism is when the government owns all of the means of production (meaning there is no private enterprise) and there is no private property, not even a toothbrush. Name one private enterprise Obama has confiscated since he became president and one piece of private property he has confiscated. I'm waiting...
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 3:28pm
"So then she got out there onstage, had a Bushian moment of blank-mindedness, and blurted out "I love you, women!" as the closest thing to a coherent talking point she could muster in the instant. I was embarrassed for her and for the obviousness of the pandering strategy on display. Honestly, it reminded me of a hilarious bit from Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gId6nrMDmUU Konstantin, Great analogy, and a funny one. Romney is wooden, and so is his wife. Normally, that would detract from their political images (cf. Gore), but there are a lot of wooden Dittoheads out there who vote, sad to say. Thanks for the entertaining link.
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 3:39pm
Noga, I have to say, I really appreciated your thoughtful and substantive response to tnmats. It's good to know that you had a well-thought-out answer to the point that Mrs. Romney had far more resources at her disposal to battle and cope with her disease than nearly anyone else in America, or for that matter, the world.
- miceelf
August 29, 2012 at 3:47pm
Noga, thank you for the thoughtful, well-reasoned critique, you display the true intellect of a conservative. Peewee Herman would be proud.
- tmmats
August 29, 2012 at 3:57pm
Tnmats, on this thread-- I make no general comment about your comments--let me be as thoughtful and well-reasoned as Noga1. You're here a censorious prig who would want to shut down comments with which you disagree as though you have a proprietory interest in safe guarding, and excluding from, here the politically incorrect comments, as in not confirming to your own biases. I wouldn't say that 08/29/2012 - 2:38pm EDT is the comment of an "idiot." But it is idiotic and rather insidious when thought about, as though you're a laboring worker trying build the secure walls of the echo chamber.
- basman
August 29, 2012 at 4:12pm
"What a coterie of sourpusses who can't transcend their own political prejudices or pause for a second to ask themselves the meaning of such rage against a graceful woman who made a very effective speech last night. " I would say, given the reason she was speaking, that if she failed to make significant numbers of us transcend our political proclivities, then she definitely did not give a "very effective speech last night." That is precisely what a very effective speech would have done. Politics does not grade on a curve - either she moved votes her man's way, or she failed. If she managed to prove that she could carry a message from a teleprompter reasonably effectively (and she did that), great. That wasn't her purpose. That doesn't make her "very effective." If she managed to engender enthusiasm in those already convinced that her husband is the man of the hour, and I suspect she did, that's a nice day's work. It's not a very effective speech though, given the context, because she could have gotten up and stumbled through an entirely pedestrian encomium to Mitt Romney, or spent 3 minutes saying how honored she is to be at the great man's side, and she'd have had that effect. No, to be "very effective" she had to convince those of us inclined to be skeptical, and women in particular, that Mitt IS the man of the hour for America. I don't know whether she did that for any great number of skeptics, but she utterly failed with me. And this is not "prejudice" speaking. I thought Christie's speech was very effective, for example, and I would no more vote for him or want him for President than I would want George W. Bush back. But Christie connected on the themes that matter. He made positions I generally disagree with sound plausibly correct, and in doing so accomplished what he was intending to accomplish (giving his party's nominee a solid foundation of positioning and policy on which to launch himself, that was not appealing only to the already convinced).
- IowaBeauty
August 29, 2012 at 4:22pm
[I can't believe I read all these comments]. From the post: “If you have to assert you are human, there’s no way you are going to be elected.”). In the Arabian Nights (if memory serves) sometimes a ruler would disguise himself as a common person and mingle unknown with the masses to get in touch with what was really going on in his kingdom. It's a little late in the game (now that they have Secret Service protection, though perhaps they can distract the agents with alcohol and prostitutes), but perhaps the Romneys should disguise themselves as homeless people and live on the streets for a year. If they had done that (it's REALLY late now), they could have crashed the GOP convention, grabbed the podium, stripped off their rags, and unveiled themselves in their royal/human being finery, and spoken eloquently about what they had learned in their year living on the streets and begging for food. TOO LATE. PS. I am glad the TNR web site is working again. Or was I the only person who could not sign on yesterday?
- skahn
August 29, 2012 at 5:25pm
"I would say, given the reason she was speaking, that if she failed to make significant numbers of us transcend our political proclivities, then she definitely did not give a "very effective speech last night." That is precisely what a very effective speech would have done." Correct, IowaBeauty. Reagan's Tear Down This Wall Speech moved me, partly because I was stationed in Berlin at the height of the Cold War in the early Sixties. I identified with his words. But I identify with very little that Romney and his wife say. When Ann went over to Tuesday's convention theme, We Built It, I tuned out. She and her husband and even her father built nothing without the help of others, including the government. She's a phony. She did not connect with me at all, like Reagan did with his Berlin Wall speech. I, too, grew up poor, Iowa. But that left me with no resentment of the rich. I'm happy for the rich, as long as they have some humility--as long as they don't strut around announcing that they got there all by themselves. I've met a number of rich people who indulge in that kind of repulsive behavior. And the Romneys, who have leaned on others their whole lives to get where they are, are just two more such people. I'm no knee-jerk liberal. I'm a conservative on several issues, e.g., crime. I see today's Democrats as mostly a source of white noise. But today's Republicans are out to turn America into a one-party state. That's why I'm unmoved by almost any lie they tell, like We Built It. They're dangerous. There was an East German woman whom we G.I.'s called Berlin Betty who was broadcasting propaganda to us in Berlin in the early Sixties. I am as unmoved by Ann and Mitt Romney, a daughter and son of privilege, claiming to build things all by themselves as I was by Berlin Betty claiming that I could gain democratic freedom by defecting to East Germany.
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 6:20pm
"I would say, given the reason she was speaking, that if she failed to make significant numbers of us transcend our political proclivities, then she definitely did not give a "very effective speech last night." I think you have a very flattering view of yourself and others if you imagine Anne Romney could have made ANY speech that would make you transcend your political proclivities. Nothing I read here came as a surprise, having, as I indicated before, been involved in discussions about another candidate's fair and rich wife. It seems to be the American way, this is what passes for political commentary, this absence of respect, charity and perspective, this incredible lashing out at a woman for daring to support her husband in a conservative convention. It's a cut throat culture of mutual engagement where no quarter is offered or even remotely suggested. And this thoughtless, verbal brutality, in the service of the man about whom Cass Sunstein once wrote: "The antonym of respect is disdain or (better) contempt; the antonym of charity is selfishness or (better) stinginess. It is much worse to be disrespectful than to be uncharitable. Politicians who show respect--Senator McCain is a good example--tend not to attack the competence, the motivations, or the defining commitments of those who disagree with him. Politicians who show charity as well as respect--Senator Obama is a rare example--tend to put opposing arguments in the best possible form, to praise the motivations of those who offer such arguments, and to seek proposals that specifically accept the defining commitments of all sides." The choir of jeerers is more reminiscent of a would-be lynching mob (with all that talk about money -- you bet). It's a scary spectacle, the ugly American par excellence.
- noga1
August 29, 2012 at 6:26pm
Noga, People with real content and thought behind their words have more than once changed my mind on very important issues (I've gone from growing up Catholic on a cattle ranch to being a vegetarian with no discernable religion because of some of them), and there absolutely are things she could have said that would have caused me to reconsider what I think of her husband as President. But they would have had to have come from some experience deeper than getting home on time from her second date, and they would have had to be rooted in something more plausible than a claim that "we are just like you." I don't think it's even fair for me to claim to understand the needs of people who struggle to pay their bills and make a life for their children, because it's been a decade since I gave a moment's thought whether I could write a check for something I wanted, and one rapidly loses perspective on the difficulties that being in that situation brings. Likewise her faux solidarity with working women - Anne Romney may have been the busiest person on earth, doing things we'd all like to have to time to do, and valuable things as well - but a claim that she or her husband understand what it's like to do all those things we expect women to do AND earn enough money to keep clothes on their kid's back at the same time is laughable. It's not disrespectful to say that. It WOULD be disrespectful to say that she doesn't understand what it's like to battle personal illness and not know whether you'll be alive to see your grandchildren's graduation, because she clearly has experience that would give her that understanding. I'd be the last person to criticize her for that particular part of her remarks. Taking that podium to say what she said was a claim of relevance, and no, I don't respect people who claim relevance based on things they don't understand. I don't respect someone who claims that big business is populated by banal, evil drones intent on extracting every last dollar from their victims .. customers .. unless they've spent some time in big business (and if they have, they hardly ever make that claim). I don't respect people who have no understanding of the science claiming that global warming is a hoax or using some single data set to disprove it. I don't respect rich people, unless they have done something specific to gain that understanding, who claim to understand how working people feel and what they need to be secure and healthy. I'll offer you another commonplace wisdom: respect is not something given, it is something earned, and you earn it by knowing what the hell you're talking about. Charity is something given, and I'll charitably say that Anne Romney had a brutally difficult task placed before her, and she carried off the mechanics admirably. But that is not enough to call her speech "very effective." I mean, look at the word "effective": it means you moved what you intended to move. I don't think she did.
- IowaBeauty
August 29, 2012 at 8:21pm
noga1, The GOP won the presidency in 1988, 2000, and 2004 by engaging in some of the ugliest and most dishonest character-assassination rhetoric since the Civil War. Remember when the GOP silently encouraged Sarah Palin to imply that Obama is a terrorist? When combat veteran John Kerry was called a coward by the draft-dodging Bush team? When Michael Dukakis was accused of letting Willie Horton, a black man, out of jail so he could kill again? Ann Romney has embraced this ugly political party, which is currently depriving people of the right to vote and redistricting to rig the vote, completely and joyously. Did she try to include the opposition in her message Tuesday? Did she encourage people of all political beliefs to work together for the betterment of America, like Obama did at the 2008 convention and in his first 3 years in office (and got kicked in the teeth by the GOP for it)? No, all she did was make things up to brag about. I like John McCain a lot when he's in his maverick mode, when he admits, like Obama did, that the opposition party has something to offer in the political dialogue. But Ann Romney said nothing like that Tuesday. She appealed totally to the hard-line GOP base. Ann Romney said nothing to transcend anything Tuesday, let alone anybody's political proclivities. It appears that neither she nor her husband have transcendent proclivities (note Romney's birth certificate comment last Friday in Detroit). But if either one of them ever says something politically transcendent, I'll acknowledge it and give them their due.
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 8:27pm
I get it. You are all just pure hearted, intelligent, rational, justice-seeking people who can see an ugly woman for what she is, even when she comes dressed as a rich blonde complete with a debilitating disease. Just the perfect woman to hate, in this day and age, in the current political circumstances. Robespierre would have found a great receptive audience in you. You don't realize that if you advocate for universalism, you are obliged to apply “the same rules to those who sleep in palaces and those who sleep under the bridges of Paris”. (Arendt) I'm wondering if having lots of money is now considered a crime punishable by a public stoning, or pitch forking.
- noga1
August 29, 2012 at 8:56pm
Again, the electorate doesn't vote a first lady into office, they vote a president. She comes along with the victor, and Americans are fairly tolerant of who and how she is.
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 9:08pm
You get that impression from the comments in this thread, ironyraod? I mean that "Americans are fairly tolerant of who and how she is."?
- noga1
August 29, 2012 at 9:25pm
K2K, I'm glad to see you here and trust you are doing well.
- noga1
August 29, 2012 at 9:26pm
Don't hate 'er, noga. Don't hate nobody. Just disagree strongly with the often-nasty methods and pronouncements of her party. She had a chance to stand up in Detroit last Friday and say no to her husband's birth-certificate demagoguery, but she didn't. And since when is disagreeing with someone the same as wanting to behead them (your Robespierre comment)? I don't even want to behead a fish (love those fish eyes). I know rich people who don't go around bragging about how they did it all themselves (especially when they didn't). Don't hate 'em. Love 'em, especially when they buy me dinner. I love generous rich people most of all. Ain't got nothin' against 'em, 'cept when they brag. Smugness is my least favorite human characteristic. And Ann Romney and most of her fellow Republicans are full of it.
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 10:13pm
Yes -- I mean of course the millions of Americans out in the world and not the couple of dozen commentators here on the TNR threads. If that wasn't obvious, I apologize for the ambiguity.
- ironyroad
August 30, 2012 at 12:41am
It's true that Ann Romney is not running for office. But when she (and/or the party) puts herself out there, she's fair game for comment. She always has the option of smiling and nodding her support and saying nothing, but she didn't take it. Frankly, I hate it when politicians drag their spouses into the public eye. Whenever a newly appointed or elected official makes their first official appearance, the "loyal spouse" is always at their side. I've never understood it. What does the spouse have to do with it? It's a job and barring unusual circumstances (no, the presidency in and of itself does not qualify), I'm really only interested in the one who's going to do it. I resolved years ago that if I ever held a public office, I would not ask my spouse to join me on stage, and would even discourage it. I understand the wife of former MN governor Jesse Ventura would have nothing to do with her husband's political life and basically lived away from the limelight at the family's home. She had the right idea.
- Claris
August 30, 2012 at 5:49am
Wouldn't you expect fairness and tolerance to shine more brightly from among the kind of commenters that come here, ironyroad? They appear to be an educated thinking lot, don't they? “If a flame catches the cedars, what will the hyssop in the rock do?”
- noga1
August 30, 2012 at 7:05am
"sisterhood" http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ann-romney-addresses-women/2012/08/29/32a1d02a-f1e8-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_video.html
- Claris
August 30, 2012 at 10:41am
"Wouldn't you expect fairness and tolerance to shine more brightly from among the kind of commenters that come here, ironyroad?" No. I'm afraid I don't share that assumption.
- ironyroad
August 30, 2012 at 1:10pm
GOP has no concept of how to appeal to educated women who have jobs. As a group, we are not anymore interested in the Romney's early dates than men. Here are few questions: Will we continue to have Medicare and Social Security that WE paid into, not just our husbands? Do we have to have Republican legislators assisting during pelvic exams? Will our healthcare insurance become affordable again? Will we all have access to affordable healthcare? Are our children going to be sent back to the Middle East to fight another war for belligerent Israel because Adelson said so and he owns Mitt? If you were honest, why won't you disclose your tax returns? There is no ammunition if you were honest. Why shouldn't we see Mitt's birth certificate since his father was an immigrant from Mexico?
- smabry03
August 30, 2012 at 10:38pm
"Are our children going to be sent back to the Middle East to fight another war for belligerent Israel because Adelson said so and he owns Mitt?" WTF??
- noga1
August 31, 2012 at 7:13am