Thursday, July 19, 2012

A Hiatus From My Usual Willard Romney-Related Rantings

Just for today, instead of blogging about Willard Romney, I'll focus on his wife, Ann. I won't even pretend to harbor the same intense animosity for Mrs. Romney as I do for her husband, but still she is a Romney. Perhaps being a Romney by marriage is even worse in some ways than being born into the fold. For Willard, it can at least be said that he had no choice in the matter. For the record, I'm not sure exactly what it is about Romneyism that rankles me so greatly. I actually like much of what I've read about Willard's late father, George Romney, who seems to have been a very principled man. At the same time, he seems to be the exception in that clan. Maybe it's even just the sound of the name. To my ears, Romney phonemization (not a rea word, by the way) of the now-obsolete sound (from my years in Catholic school) of chalk squeaking on a chalkboard.

Anyway, Ann Romney recently (this morning, I believe) was interviewed by Robin Roberts. Roberts asked Mrs. Romney why her husband refuses to release additional tax returns. Mrs. Romney's answer paraphrased her husband's sentiments, stating,  "We've given all you people need to know about our finances."  She elaborated, offering as evidence of her husband's "worthiness" [my word, not hers] that he gives ten per cent of his income to his church each year.

I take issue with Mrs. Romney's choice of words. What gives her the right to decide what or how much we need to know? Had she said, "We've given you all we're willing to give. You can make a choice to vote for or against my husband based on the information that we've provided, but we're not giving more," I could respect her answer. I still wouldn't vote for her husband, but I wouldn't be offended by her answer. Regarding her incredible assertion that we should trust her husband because he gives a substantial wad of cash to his church each year, I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. Regarding her use of you people, others before me have covered that topic quite soundly.

When pressed as to why her husband would not simply release additional tax returns so that people would move on from that issue, she responded, "Because there are so many things that will be open again for more attack... and that's really, that's just the answer. And we've given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life. And so, the election, again, will not be decided on that. It will be decided on who is gonna turn the economy around and how are jobs gonna come back to America."

I take issue not just with her choice of words here, but also with her ideas as to how the election is to be decided. If I'm not mistaken, Mrs. Romney has one vote, just as each of you people have, as my parents have, as most of my readers have, and as I would have if I had been born twenty-six days earlier.   She's not some sort of superelector whose single vote counts for ten thousand votes of the unwashed masses, nor is she the arbiter of what must be considered by each voter entering the voting booth.  She may cast her one vote based on the criteria she considers most critical. If others, however, choose to factor into their decisions the importance of transparency in relation  to the finances of the person we elect to the highest office in our nation, there's not a whole lot either Mrs. Romney or her husband Willard can do about it.

What Mrs. Romney might have said is that the election should be decided based  upon the candidate most qualified to turn the economy around and bring jobs back to America. This would still open an entirely new can of worms, as what in hell makes her husband most likely to bring jobs back to America when he's shown himself to be an absolute virtuoso of outsourcing, of sending jobs out of America? While still ridiculous at face value, at least her verbiage would not have been so off-putting.Additionally, she could have made her point quite nicely without the virtual epithet of you people.

Between her attempt to tell the American voting public how much they need to know in order to make a decision concerning the election, her allegation that, among other things, because her husband gives ten per cent of his income to his church we should trust him and not press him concerning his finances, and her directive as to what considerations not should but will determine the outcome of this year's presidential election, I find Mrs. Romney's attitude  to be amazingly condescending. I have no way of knowing precisely what qualifications she thinks she has to make such determinations for the rest of you people(remember, I can't vote this year, but you people can), but she's not significantly more educated than the average American, and is significantly less educated than most of the adults in my life. Yes, there is more to intelligence than education, but it seems unlikely that Mrs. Romney's life experiences have placed her on a significantly higher plane in that regard  than where most other Americans currently stand.

So cast your vote however you choose, based on whatever criteria you deem important, Ann Romney. Others will do the same whether you like it or not.

1 comment:

  1. I think I might actually dislike Ann even more than I do Mitt. Both of them make me hurl expletives at the TV every time I see them.