April 17th, 2012
By Frank Byronn Glenn -- I don't know why she would love it.
Maybe she loved it because Mitt wasn't reminding people enough that the Romneys are very
rich. He says it almost every chance he gets, mind you, but maybe that just wasn't enough for her. She also said it was "an early birthday present" for her. Really? I don't quite follow her logic, there, but why should that surprise me. I don't understand much of what Mitt or Ann says, frankly.
They're a little like extra-terrestrials visiting earth for the first time -- and they're still learning the ropes. I don't know how you could live on earth for so long and be so slow to pick it up. A special gene of some kind expressing itself after several generations of latency, perhaps?
Or maybe it was because she and Mitt realized that the Republican "War on Women"
was not making winning the Presidency any easier for Mitt. And they both want that very much. Being President of the United States is even better than being very rich -- at least for four years or so. Rich is probably definitely better -- in the long run. But when Hilary Rosen reminded people that Ann Romney couldn't possibly understand the struggles of the working woman, Ann Romney was thrilled to remind everyone that she "struggled" with motherhood. I mean -- its tough raising five active boys on $290 million dollars and a staff of 30. If you don't believe it, you should try it. Okay. Which teller window do I go to get my $290 million -- so I can get start "trying" it right now!
She loved it -- oh, she loved it!
There was a couple of things she may have forgotten to mention,
however, now that I think of it.
Did she ever say whether or not she thought women should have control over their own bodies
and their own reproductive choices? Oh, and did she mention whether or not she supported women's access to affordable contraception? Or women's right to some privacy and dignity in their reproductive healthcare
issues and options, and affordable, quality women's healthcare in general. Did she emphatically announce her support for equal pay for equal work for women? The right to choose?
The right to testify before a committee of Congress without being called a "slut" and a "prostitute" --
or being accused of wanting right wing talking jackals to pay so you could have a "really lot of sex"? Or being told that since you want Rush Limbaugh and his talking jack-asses buddies to pay for you to have "lots" and "lots" of sex -- then you have to video it and put it on the internet so all those physically over-grown (grotesquely so) but mentally, emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually under-developed little boys in the Republican potty could oogle and aww-gle at the wonders of what could have been for them - or maybe yet could be for them -- somehow -- someday...maybe.
Naw. She did not mention any of those "real" women's issues.
She just mentioned that a non-descript talking head of a woman on CNN mentioned that she had never had to work, and therefore was not particularly well qualified to understand the plight of women today - who live and actually work in the real world. And the CNN talking head woman was right about that.
Ann Romney had time to bemoan the plight of rich,
white women caught-up in raising four rascally boys. She had time to crow that she "loved" the fact that a female commentator on a slightly right of center talk show called her out a little bit about it.
But she didn't think to pause a moment and show a trifle of solidarity
with struggling women in the United States and around the world. And she didn't have enough empathy in her heart for her fellow women to even murmur a brief, ambiguous word about how all women struggle a little at times and deserve the support of their governments, their communities and their families in those times when they are struggling.
No. She didn't. And that was not only a bad thing for a woman of means to do to women of lesser means. It was also politics! Very bad politics, indeed!
A few endangered species Republicans famously remarked that women care about jobs, not reproductive rights, contraception, and healthcare. Well, we shall see! We shall see.
I guess Ann Romney is just as tone-deaf and politically maladroit as her husband --Mitt Romney -- is. Not surprisingly!