Not relatable?

Published by Starfish

I saw a snippet of an interview with Diane Sawyer and Mitt Romney last night on the internet. One thing that bothered me is that she kept insisting he wasn't "relatable". That because Mitt Romney is rich, he can't relate to the average American, because he drives a "Cadillac". All I could think in my head was, "huh?" Mitt Romney responded by explaining that he believes Americans want a president who can lead, and who can fix the economy, and that he is the best person to do that in the current situation. I thought this was a great answer, quite sufficient. Then Sawyer asks again, "But does that make you relatable?" I started getting sick of the word "relatable" in just this small minute clip that I was watching.

We can debate all day long what makes each American relate to one another. Bottom line is, we all struggle in life, money doesn't solve all problems. And even for those who are poor and "relate" to each other financially, they don't "relate" to each other in EVERY SINGLE aspect of life! To me, relatability is not the issue. Here is the issue.

America DOES need a leader. America DOES need someone who can fix the economy and improve our quality of life by allowing US to take control of the economy, and not the government. America, needs someone who knows a lot about the economy and how it works. America needs someone who has knowledge of the affairs of the government, has experience in leading a government. Does America really want some average Joe who struggles to pay his bills? Do we REALLY want someone "relatable"? Really? I don't want someone who can relate to me financially, I want someone who knows what the heck they are doing so that I don't have to worry about it! You put these Socialists/Progressives in office and then I really start to worry about how the heck I'm going to pay my frickin' bills!

Another thing, B. O. has no relatability whatsoever. How come it wasn't an issue then? He was living a posh lifestyle without explanation as to how he even paid for it?! Suddenly, a guy called Mitt Romney comes in with his full story in his pocket, explained without gaps, showing how hard he worked to get where he is (which should no doubt leave us inspired about the true American dream), and he's questioned about being relatable. I could list a whole slew of Democrats put in office that were very rich, many of them rich by entitlement and not by hard work. Again... why does it matter now?

What she "meant" was just as bad.

Published by Starfish

I came across this article and find that it explains just what I think about Hilary Rosen's explanation of what she "meant" by saying, Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." I wanted to share.

http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/04/16/what-hilary-rosen-meant-was-just-as-bad/

What Hilary Rosen Meant Was Just as Bad

Unless you’ve been under a rock for a week, you’ve heard about Hilary Rosen’s comments Ann Romney didn’t “work a day in her life,” and the firestorm that started.

Ms. Rosen certainly stepped in it. But this post is not about the words she chose. Others have written plenty on that topic. My problem is with what she was really trying to say, which was just as bad, or worse.

Ms. Rosen was unartfully trying to say that because Ann has not held a paid job, or in other words because Ann is wealthy, Ann has no credibility to speak on economic issues. This is wrong. It’s anti-American and undemocratic.

Mitt has been attacked with comments he is “out of touch,” or that he (and now Ann) can’t understand people because of their wealth, or the insupportable statement that he somehow “isn’t connecting.” I could trot out numerous examples of how Mitt’s words have been taken out of context to try and make the point he’s one of “them,” not one of “us,” or, in OWS lingo, part of the one percent.

All of these attacks are meant to create and perpetuate a culture of blame, an us vs. them mentality and to divide us based on our economic circumstances. As pointed out by our own David Parker in another post tonight, they are certainly not in the spirit of Barack Obama’s promise to go above partisan politics as usual and the politics of division. The American dream to me, and I believe to the entire GOP, is that all people should have an opportunity to make of themselves what they will. To point at someone like Ann Romney and tear her down because she is fortunate enough to have had success is clearly what Ms. Rosen was trying to do, and it is just plain wrong. I’m offended because Ms. Rosen’s words try to solidify that economic divide solely to keep a Democrat in the White House. Her comments were mean spirited and misguided. There is no hope in them, only, I believe, a knowing mis-representation intended to solicit the support of the poor, who, ironically, are in the situation they’re in due to President Obama’s failed economic policies.

Mitt has said it very well: if you vilify success, you’ll have less of it. The left has been vilifying Mitt’s success since he started in order to shift the blame from their own failed policies and solidify their hold on power. This just cannot stand.

With those thoughts in mind, here are my top ten reasons why what Ms. Rosen meant was just as bad as what she said:

1. Mitt and Ann Romney have just as much to contribute to the conversation as anyone else, and of course actually have more. Even if Mitt has more money than 99% of the populace, that’s not a disqualifying fact, it’s uniquely qualifying. Being successful means he and Ann likely understand more about the economy than I or another average Joe like me does. I want my president to have been successful in his or her chosen field, and suggesting that one economic class of Americans is not qualified to serve is wrong.

2. Mitt’s father worked himself up from nothing to become the president of a car company. He had no college education. He had been brought by his parents from Mexico, where he was born a U.S. citizen, to start a new life. I don’t expect life was easy on George Romney. And when you grow up in a home like that, especially as Mitt did to a parent that lived through the great depression, I’m pretty sure that being wasteful of money, or being lazy, just was not tolerated in George’s household. I know it wasn’t in Mitt’s. I’ve mentioned before that once in a while I get to observe the Romney family from a step or two outside their central family circle. And I’ve never, ever, observed any wastefulness with money. To say the members of the clan I’ve met are frugal is an understatement. They appreciate the value of money more than many others I know of lesser means, understand their fortunate position and are very, very responsible not to take it for granted. To suggest that Mitt has no appreciation for economic difficulty is just wrong.

3. Ann Romney’s family similarly came from humble circumstances. Ann’s grandfather was a coal miner in Wales, and came to the United States after suffering a significant injury in the mines to make a new life. Upon arrival the family understood that education was critical to success, so the entire family sacrificed to send one member of the family to college by working and pooling their resources. The selected family member was Ann’s father. I imagine that when he attended school, he did so with a special sense of responsibility for the sacrifice of his family on his behalf. As a result of his education, he was able to get a good job upon graduating. Again, sacrifice at that level becomes part of the family DNA, and similarly from what I’ve observed there is no sense of entitlement on the Davies side of the family; on the contrary a healthy respect for what they have. To suggest that Ann Davies Romney knows nothing of economic hardship is also just wrong.

4. Mitt Romney is living solely on what he earned. While people try and say Mitt was born into privilege because of the success of his father, they may not realize that what Mitt has, he earned. It’s not a family fortune that makes up his wealth. Whatever he received from his parents was donated to charity years ago. No, Mitt is an example of the American dream. He had an opportunity to go to college, and made the best of it by becoming valedictorian. You don’t achieve that by having a sense of entitlement, only through a combination of innate ability and a lot of hard work. Mitt then went on to get a joint JD (law degree) and MBA. Having pursued the same path I know it’s not easy. Nothing is given to you. To suggest that Mitt had everything given to him and therefore “can’t relate” is just wrong.

5. Mitt’s and Ann’s charitable contributions are noteworthy. Not only have they given a significant percentage of their income to charity, the sheer dollar numbers are staggering. Their commitment to helping others is worthy of respect. To say they’re out of touch or don’t understand others’ suffering is just wrong.

6. Mitt and Ann have both contributed their time in charitable causes. Mitt has served as a lay minister in his church, counseling those who are facing sometimes severe economic, emotional or spiritual trials. Ann has similarly served in volunteer positions in church and in charitable organizations. Ann has worked with at-risk youth and supports multiple sclerosis research. They have both seen the devastation joblessness can create. To suggest Ann is not in a position to speak on the economy is just wrong.

7. Mitt learned through his profession how the economy works. He knows what a disaster Obama’s economic policies have been and saw it coming. In 2008 he made the comment that electing a Democrat with a Democratic Congress would be like giving the president of a company a blank check, which would inevitably result in overspending. In the case of the country it would be ruinous for the deficit. Now four years later President Obama has added more to the deficit than all other presidents combined, and the Republicans’ unwillingness to go along with these spending habits has led to an unhealthy gridlock in Washington. Mitt saw this coming. To say he has no perspective on economic issues is horrifically wrong. To re-elect Obama with a Democratic Congress would only make things worse. And to re-elect Obama with a GOP Congress would result in continued logjams. The only path to success is to elect Mitt with a GOP Congress.

8. Ann has been WORKING on the campaign trail for about a year now. She has MS. Her efforts are continually a sacrifice. Why does she do it? Because she also saw the effects of Obama’s policies and wanted them undone. As I’ve reported before, she was a catalyst in getting Mitt to run again, even though it’s always an uphill battle to unseat an incumbent. Mitt and Ann want Mitt to win so he can fix the Obama mess, precisely because they do understand economic issues.

9. In the interview in which she got herself in trouble, Ms. Rosen was trying to take issue with Ann’s saying she knows women’s concerns. Ann’s been on the campaign trail for a year, and this special privilege has allowed her to hear the voices of women about the prospects for success for their own immediate families and their children, and the concern that the staggering national debt will cripple our children’s ability to have a better life. Ann has a perspective from being on the trail a year that Ms. Rosen, inside the beltway, can’t comprehend. To discount that because of personal bias is just wrong.

10 Most offensive, Ms. Rosen seems to want us to believe that because Ann has not worked outside the home her views are worthless on the subject of the economy. It’s one thing to slip, if it was a slip, and say stay-at-home moms don’t “work.” Even Ms. Rosen now admits they do. But it’s another thing altogether to truly mean that stay at home moms should have no voice in the democratic process or that their views are worth less than those of working women. This is anti-democratic and wrong.

Hilary Rosen may or may not have meant what she got in trouble for saying. But to me, what she meant to say was just as bad.

Today's feminists need to go away.

Published by Starfish

I'm sorry, but I am feeling very angry about that Hilary Rosen character and what she said about Ann Romney. Let me cite this online article: http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/04/12/dnc-advisor-hilary-rosen-insults-ann-romney-anns-rapid-fire-response/

Wow... just wow, the things that are rolling around in my head and heart right now. I have to start off by saying that I think it is a completely selfish point of view, that today's feminists have, to think that women should put themselves first and have a career over family. When these women become mothers they fool themselves by rationalizing  that they are working away from the home "for their children, so they can have a better life." Children do not need THINGS, they need their mother and their father. Anyone with a human heart knows this, and convincing yourself otherwise is just a ploy to satisfy your own selfish needs to feel fulfilled and accomplished in a world that says corporate status says more about a person than what kind of family they have.

This Rosen person also said that stay-at-home-moms are "lucky" to be able to stay home, that they can afford it. and not every woman can. That is the second time I have seen this misconception in the last couple of days. I am a stay-at-home-mom. It is a sacrifice, and we are not by any means financially rich or "lucky". My husband works very hard for us so that I can stay home and provide my children of THE BEST POSSIBLE UPBRINGING. I also work tirelessly all day, I maybe get to take a break for myself for maybe 1 hour per day until the kids go to bed. I know many families with stay-at-home-moms who work very hard to budget and save money just so they don't have to go  back to work. And here is the thing about going back to work after having children; someone has to watch the kids, someone has to be PAID to watch the kids. So some woman will go back to work just to leave their baby with a paid stranger? And what about this paid stranger? Would Ms. Rosen say that they haven't worked a day in their lives as well? They do what SAHM's do, I guess that means that they don't work. Oh wait... they get PAID to do it, so I guess that counts as work.  ...Wait - huh?

In an effort to refrain from offending anyone, I must express that I am no naive person and I realize that many married women do have to work. All circumstances are very unique. My own mother was a single mom, so of course she had to work, but her desires were NUMBER ONE to make sure she was a good mom. I doubt those like Ms. Rosen give a rats behind about being a good mom in the truest sense. It is probably number 3 or 4 on their priority list. They probably feel relief instead of guilt that they don't have to deal with their children most of the time.

She should read up more on Ann Romney, this woman worked her butt off being a SAHM. She volunteered doing many many things for charity, and I suppose that doesn't count.

 

There are so many more mean things I want to say about that ugly woman, but I will refrain because I don't want to be considered as ugly as her.