According to the Associated Press (AP), President Barack Obama’s sticking up for Ann Romney, the wife of Republican Tea Party (GOTP) rival Willard Mitt Romney and the apparent target of a Democratic operative who’s suggesting she’s unqualified to speak about the economy’s tolls because she’s “never worked a day in her life.”
“It was the wrong thing to say,” Obama told WCMH-TV in Columbus, Ohio. Criticism of candidates’ spouses should be out of bounds, he added.
Polls show women lean heavily Democratic and favor Obama by a wide margin in battleground states, and unfortunately for Willard, he must win at least 40 percent of the women’s vote to have a shot at beating the President.
Willard’s keeping his mouth shut on the issue – so far – allowing Ann to comment, saying raising five sons is hard work and that while she never has worried about finances, she has faced the ordeals of cancer and multiple sclerosis.
Everyone should be able to agree on a couple of things here; first, the candidate’s wives “should” be out of bounds, however, the First Lady’s been repeatedly attacked by the talking heads on the right from the beginning of the last campaign in 2008; second, mothers work a lot harder than fathers and raising children is a full-time job; that being said however, raising children when you have hundreds of millions of dollars squirreled away in off shore accounts is considerably easier than raising kids when you’re worried about where the rent money’s coming from or if the only food your children get during the day will be from their school.
Mrs. Romney has faced tremendous challenges in her life, and she’s no doubt infinitely qualified to address those challenges as a woman; however, she’s not remotely qualified to address many other issues facing women today, or to be the person Willard turns to when he wants a woman’s opinion.
Can she address everyday women’s healthcare issues? Nope, sorry, $200 million in off-shore accounts pretty well assure she’s never waited in clinics all day to be seen by an over-worked staff; nor have her children. On top of this, her hubby says he’s going to end Planned Parenthood and all its health programs for women. What’s Ann’s opinion on that decision affecting millions of women?
Can she address women’s employment issues? Nope, sorry, again there’s that $200 million staring her in the face; on top of that “little” issue, she’s been a stay at home mom who’s never been employed; she hasn’t had to go out and supplement the family income, she hasn’t had to leave her boys in day care or with relatives while she went to work being paid less than her male counter-parts.
Can she address women’s pay issues? Nope, sorry again, she’s never been paid less than her male-counterparts because she’s never worked.
Can she address women’s economic issues? Nope, sorry, when you have $200 million sitting in the Caymans you really don’t worry about the price of a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a new back pack or pair of tennis shoes.
Wait, what about the price of a gallon of gas, after all doesn’t she have two Cadillacs?
Clearly there’s a plethora of women’s issues where Ann would be just as clueless as her husband, and that’s the point being made the other day, albeit badly.
The Romney’s can’t have it both ways, they can’t live in the world of Thurston and Lovey Howell III, while trying to pretend to be Ozzie and Harriett, and then get offended when someone calls them on it. They don’t know the struggles of “the little people” because they’re not now, nor ever have been in that classification, so please spare the electorate from the pretended outrage.
April 14, 2012 at 09:29
a new back pack . . .
got a good laugh out of that one!
April 14, 2012 at 15:02
Let’s call out a couple underlying assumptions in this blog post:
You assume that the wealth was given, never earned. As if Mitt and Ann, never worked a day in their life, and they inherited all their fortune.
Stemming from the first assumption, they are somehow clueless to how the world works, and because of their lifestyle, having never specifically faced those challenges they are unqualified to comment on or solve the problem.
So by your own reasoning, you are not a woman, therefore, you can’t address women’s pay issues either, and thereby not qualified to judge others on the quality of their opinions, either. The only people who can comment about it, are the single moms working at McDonalds to support their families. But wait…they don’t have the solution (‘cause if they did, they wouldn’t be in that position).
What about economic issues? People of wealth never have to worry about protecting their money, right? They just spend it, because an endless supply of money will always be there. I’m sure this is how it could be perceived in the eyes of a poor person. Maybe you ought to read “The Millionaire Next Door” and get educated on the subject. Rich people are rich because they SAVE not SPEND. They are more aware of how the economy works, than the average person, hence their wealth is ABOVE average.
It comes down to who you want as a leader. Do you want someone who UNDERSTANDS your problems, or someone who can FIX your problems? Do you want a LOSER who understands the suffering from the pains of the system, or a WINNER who understands and beat the system? By the context of your post, let’s find the people who have suffered the most, and make them the leaders, right? According to you, the people who can’t fix their own problems seem to know the best insight on how to FIX them. Well, that seems completely illogical to me.
Now, supposing that it’s a elitest, that uses the public to gain their wealth through fraud, (like a Kennedy) then I might agree with you. However, that approach was tried by Newt Gingrich and failed horribly. Hence, being rich isn’t a legitimate disqualification to be president.