Dear Ann Romney, It's Mitt Who's Lucky


There is much to admire about Ann Romney. Her indomitable spirit and her  inner resources  in the face of adversity.  Her selfless  devotion to her family. Her deep and abiding love of her husband. Her religious faith.  Her good works. Her  fundamental decency.

So I tread cautiously when I take exception to her in any way.  But, nevertheless, I must.

Yes,  Ann has perhaps one annoying  flaw: she has a tendency to display what I will charitably call a patrician attitude.  She puts on airs. Yesterday on the radio airwaves in Iowa, she felt compelled to defend her  husband against recent attacks from within his own party. Many Republicans have been positioning themselves at arm's length from Mitt's injudicious dismissive comments about the 47% who don't pay income taxes.  Conservative pundits have been flaying Mitt also. Even campaign sachem Tim Pawlenty has ridden off into the sunset for a new day in the private sector.

So Ann reacted defensively. When asked what she would say to these putative  betrayers on the Right, she bristled, "Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring."   She was taking no prisoners. "It's time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt's qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country." 

Even after one makes allowances for the loyalty of a wife, these remarks are rather  off-setting.  The chilly tone of her voice only served to etch more clearly  this impression.  Here was the aristocrat giving orders. The wannabe Queen Victoria tut-tutting 'We are not amused".

OK. Tell us about your husband's qualifications.  But lay off about how lucky we are that he's running.  There's no royalty in America.  We rejected those heirs over two centuries ago.

Filed under: politics, Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • I guess it is in the perspective. Lest we forget, Michelle Obama was not "proud" of this country (that means all of us collectively), until her husband, the rather aloof and regal, Barack Obama, was elected President.

    Now that is rather patrician, don't you think.

    In addition, Barack Obama's campaign has written off the so-called "bitter clingers" --i.e., the lower, white middle-class vote. I don't know if that is 47% of the electorate, but it is a big percentage. He is hoping that his coalition of the victimized and greedy (for public transfer monies) will carry the day.

    Now, can we talk about aristocratic in the Obama's? Vacations in Martha's Vineyard, over 100 rounds of patrician golf at some of the best country clubs in the land, costly parties and concerts at the White House on taxpayer dime, , an Air Force One date to NYC for dinner, a unused manz in Hyde Park. A very small percentage of Obama income given to charity vs Romeny.

    Still, I waste my time, A. You are a true believer in Obama, because he is somehow for "the little guy".

    The difference between Marie Antoinette and Michelle Obama, is at least MA would have allowed the eating of the local grain, while Michelle Obama would insist that it be a certain type to HER liking.

    Spoken like a true believer. Congrats. The eyes see, the ears hear, still.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Thnaks, Richard, for the counterpoint. But the polling seems to disagree with your assessment of our president. He scores far ahead of Romney on likeablility. Even Stuart K. Spencer, a strategist for Reagan's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns has said that Obama resembles Reagan in this respect. Spencer said that even he would rather have a beer with Obama than with his 'aloof and regal' opponent.

    And, Richard, you may want to read more of Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks to get a clearer insight on Romney's "arrogant and stupid" remarks about veterans, the working poor, college students, and the elderly. You know, the 47% dependent on the government dole and lacking self-reliance and responsibility.

Leave a comment