Ann Romney Defines Herself
WASHINGTON – IT’S NOT REALLY what Ann Romney said, as much as how her interview came off, which is why “[you] people” went viral, like a political heat seeking missile ricocheting through the new media system at super sonic speed. For a lot of people now, Ann Romney has been defined. I can’t serve you cake, but it’s the dish of the day.
By 54%-37%, they say Romney should release tax returns from additional years. Those calling for more disclosure include 75% of Democrats, 53% of independents and 30% of Republicans. – Poll: Most say Romney should release additional tax returns
In fact, New York magazine was the first to write that didn’t even hear “you people,” but the magazine’s commenters didn’t care. The Twitterverse exploded with #YouPeople, hilarious 140 character laugh lines in a rapid fire contagion, one after another as viral became global. It’s never a good idea to do an interview with a chip on your shoulder, because whether Mrs. Romney actually said “you people” or not, that’s what people heard, because this is how she sounded…
Seriously, what do you people expect?
In the last two years alone, my husband and I have tithed $1.5 and $2.6 million, and given $7 million to charity. To get received, we have to pay, not that I mind, no really, I don’t.
What have you people done?
We even gave up our elevator for you people. What’s going to be enough?
Honestly, my Mitt is “a very generous person.” I’ve got stuff.
And haven’t you people read anything about my Mitt? All the people he’s helped. He saved the Olympics! Do you really “think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things?” Private equity is what it is, deal with it. At least the guy got paid to build the stage.
Oh, and when he was Massachusetts governor he didn’t take a salary. I won’t even go into all the money we had to move around to make that one work! Christmas was a nightmare.
And don’t get me started on “how disappointed” I am in Barack Obama and all those mean ads he’s running attacking Mitt on Bain Capital and making money. He’s doing God’s work, don’t you people know anything? Helping the poor, making another hundred million, it’s all the same to us.
I don’t need anyone to give me talking points. “It was beneath the dignity of the office of the president to do something as egregious as that.” Corporations are people too, you know, and we represent corporations and a lot of you people.
Let me tell you something else. That dancing horse ad? “It makes me laugh, it’s like, ‘Really?’” That’s the best you’ve got? Besides, there are so many of you people out of work out there, you’ll be asking yourself “in the voting booth in November: Are you better off now?” No, wait, what was it Ronald Reagan said? I can never remember…. um… Oh, right. Are you better off than you were four years ago? No, wait, that puts everyone back when the financial crisis exploded, when Pres. Bush was… [adjusts silk top]…
But really, “Do you really think the future is going to be brighter on the path we’re on, or do you think we need a change?”
“I already sort of know the answer,” I just wish I was sure, because you people are so ungrateful. The economy would be in a sink hole if it weren’t for all the taxes rich people pay… well, we don’t pay them, er.. I mean, we pay enough, so you people don’t have to.
Mark my words, you people are “going to fire the coach because things aren’t going well.” I mean, they are for us, but.. well… You’d be up a creek without a yacht if we weren’t.
[...]
You do know “the coach” is Pres. Obama, right?
I’m never sure if I’m getting through to you people.
Taylor Marsh, a veteran political analyst and former Huffington Post contributor, is the author of The Hillary Effect, available at Barnes and Noble and on Amazon. Her new-media blog www.taylormarsh.com covers national politics, women and power.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Stains on a Legacy
Posted on Apr 26, 2013
-
Do “Reforms” Ever Hurt The Rich?
Posted on Apr 25, 2013
-
Is This Democracy?
Posted on Apr 24, 2013
-
Tail-gunner Ted (Guest Voice)
Posted on Apr 21, 2013
Yes, let’s nevermind that she didn’t even say it. Her attitude implied it, and it made for an entertaining twitter trend, therefore let’s just say she said it. Oh, and I think I also heard her call Mrs. Obama the B word. Well, OK, she didn’t, but just think of the hashtags! So let’s say she did. There, she did. Can you believe that? Some people.
Like it or not, this is how the appearance of the Romneys’ entitlement sounds to many people; the notion that the rules that have applied over years and years of presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns over multiple years, including Mitt Romney’s own father, don’t apply to them.
You can be one of those people enabling our presidential candidates, whoever it is, to stonewall, opt for secrecy when transparency is being demanded, but I’m not going to join that pack.
Republicans, Democrats, independents, making up a majority of Americans agree: Mitt Romney needs to release more returns.
Ann Romney defined herself, as did Mitt Romney by sending her out on ABC.
This is the Wall Street 1% mentality in action. You can excuse it, but it does our democracy no service to do so.
Nope. You nailed it adelinesdad. Doesn’t matter one whit if she said it.
Funny, because I think he should release those returns as well… but that isn’t nearly as amusing in a #hashtag.
FWIW, though — I thought the twisting and warping and ridicule of Michelle Obama’s patriotism comment to be at least this bad.
Really, can’t imagine why anyone would go into national politics. Ugh!
“FWIW, though — I thought the twisting and warping and ridicule of Michelle Obama’s patriotism comment to be at least this bad. ”
Thanks for the “add-on” Many would gloss over this.
Good to see you, Polimom….
And you and Adelinesdad both nailed it. One has to wonder how many potentially great leaders may have taken themselves out of contention due to concerns for the privacy and reputations of their families.
I guess I’m in the minority in that i don’t think the Romneys should release any further tax forms. I realize that people are going to speculate about “what they are hiding” but like the quest for Obama to release birth records it will be a neverending fishing expedition. Is there really any voter out there likely to be influenced one way or another by seeing the records? There’s no doubt that there will be fodder for people to point out how far out of the mainstream their wealth is, with all kinds of tax avoidant strategies showing up there…and the people who won’t vote for Romney on that basis won’t vote for him either way. Thus, the only gain from releasing the records will be to take the focus of discussion off of issues, which only benefits Obama.
So it”s a lose-lose proposition in terms of disclosure vs, withholding, but then it’s a question of which move will make it (mostly) go away more quickly. The conventional wisdom says to make a quick disclosure and move on, but in this case making a firm refusal to release will probably allow things to move on more quickly than would a document dump of thousands of pages that can be exploited to fuel the class warfare strategy.
Taylor,
I think where I differ with you is that although I’d like Romney to release more (mainly so we can stop talking about it and get whatever accusations that will stem from it out of the way), I see that as a flaw in strategy, not in character stemming from conceit.
As for whether I’m one of “those people” (speaking of condescending phrases) enabling our presidential candidates, that’s laughable. I’ve stated repeatedly I don’t plan to vote for either of them and we need to elevate our standards for politicians, the media, and ourselves as citizens. But attacking her character because of words she didn’t say, or because of a flawed campaign strategy, is not headed in the right direction.
CStanley,
I have been pondering over the past few days how in regular conversation, we rarely speak precisely. We often make statements and then revise those statements, sometimes in mid-sentence, without going back and officially denouncing what we said. We sometimes overgeneralize, not because we intend to deceive or even because we are sloppy, but because enumerating every possible qualification to every statement we say is simply impossible and inefficient when our intended meaning is normally understood. If I say, “boy, it’s hot outside” I don’t need to say “compared to normal temperatures experienced at this latitude.” We are given the benefit of the doubt that not every word that comes out of our mouth reflects some deeply held and immutable principle we hold in our hearts.
Some might say we *should* be more precise, and to some degree they are right. Certainly there are a lot of people (you know, those people) who make sweeping generalizations about groups of people, or who make unwarranted assumptions about someone’s motives based on stereotypes, etc. But it’s unrealistic to expect exact precision. Human communication is inherently imprecise, I’d argue, because we rely on certain things that are expected to be “understood”. Otherwise, communication would be extremely tedious. In fact, tedious is how I’d describe various comment threads where we get hung up on what someone meant by a single word or phrase. Imagine if we did that in normal life.
But when you become a politician, every word (and, apparently, whispered letter) is dissected. No one is given the benefit of the doubt. No one is allowed to take anything back. I think this is for two reasons:
a) Politicians have mastered the art of deceit. So naturally we are more critical of every word they say, looking for any sign of deception. That is justified.
b) Politicians have opponents that can play on this heightened awareness and exaggerate any perceived possible deception in their opponent.
The first reason is justified. The second is not, and is actually itself a deception which perpetuates the cycle. I’d say, more recently, we’re seeing more and more of the latter from both sides. This is why Taylor’s assertion that I am “enabling” doesn’t work, because countering this political culture does not mean always being critical of everything politicians do. It means knowing the difference between (a) and (b) above so that we can break the cycle. Politicians that deceive need to be held accountable, while still allowing politicians to communicate like human beings.
In the meantime, you are right, I can’t imagine trying to run for office in this atmosphere.
What’s wrong with calling out Mittens and Ann for being snobs. Neither one has the convictions or grace of Willard’s parents. Let’s compare Anne to Lenore and see who’s better for the “white trash.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Romney
The author uses vague and subjective criteria (“how it came off” or “how she sounded”) to find flaws in the wife of a candidate he is strongly opposed to. Some commenters have mentioned treatment of Michelle Obama. I’m not familiar with the situation (I don’t really follow First Ladies) but I am willing to take it as a given that conservatives are equally capable of taking vague and subjective criteria and finding something negative about the wife of a politician the are strongly opposed to.
The sad thing is not just that each side is willing to carry on with the same actions they claimed were wrong when the shoe was on the other foot, but that so much of this is just so vacuous. Neither Ann Romney nor Michelle Obama will be, or are, in position to actually set policy and the idea that some vague notion about their personalities will tell you something about the policies their husbands will pursue is, IMO, laughable.
Neither Ann Romney nor Michelle Obama will be, or are, in position to actually set policy and the idea that some vague notion about their personalities will tell you something about the policies their husbands will pursue is, IMO, laughable.
Many wives of politicians act as sounding boards or advisers to their husbands. Check on the link above about Lenore Romney. Anne Romney isn’t even in the same league as her deceased mother in law.
Sorry, but if the candidate wife is an active member of his campaign, then the wife is fair game just like any other member of the campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Romney#Role_in_2012_presidential_campaign
Souses are sometimes useful to campaign. But they are simply way down the list of people who are likely to be important in setting policy. Trying to predict how someone will be as president based on the personality of their wife (let alone some vague inference about their personality) is, IMO, just silly.
Let’s cut to the chase shall we? Release the damned tax returns already. What’s the hold-up? And to the excuser makers and runners of interference for those who neither need nor deserve it? You are exactly what Taylor described:
“people enabling our presidential candidates, whoever it is, to stonewall, opt for secrecy when transparency is being demanded”
Maybe your intentions are good, but you only encourage the abuses of power and privilege that make life more difficult for the rest of us, regardless of political stripe.
Abuse of power? What power? What injustice has been done? If you don’t have enough information to know if he’d be a good president, or if you think he’s hiding something, don’t vote for him.
rudi: “What’s wrong with calling out Mittens and Ann for being snobs.”
A few reasons:
1) For me personally, I don’t care for name calling. But that’s just my person taste.
2) I don’t know her aside from a few of her statements that have made headlines and a few things I’ve heard about her from third parties. I don’t know how she lives her personal life, the things she says on a daily basis and throughout her life, the people she interacts with, the way she treats her friends and acquaintances and strangers, etc. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when I don’t know them and assume they are probably basically good people, even if they have some character flaws. I certainly have character flaws. I would hope people who don’t know me wouldn’t assume they know everything about me from a few statements and things they’ve heard that they might not like, or (for example) comments on some political discussion board that they don’t agree with.
3) Given that the author and several commenters don’t seem to care much about the difference between something that she actually said and something they imagine should might have said, I can’t be sure that the prior judgment you’ve reached that she is a snob is not based on similarly flimsy evidence. This is why the truth is important. Even if she is a snob, using “you people” against her when it’s a best highly questionable that she even said it is wrong and counterproductive. You’ll make the case better if you point to actual evidence.
For the record, I’d make the same argument if it were Mitt himself who said it (or, in this case, didn’t say it). My argument has nothing to do with the fact that she is the wife and not the candidate.
Always appreciate the comments here at TMV. It’s a pleasure to share my columns here.
Rudi is correct and amid all the smoke from some commenters found the fire. Zephyr nails precisely what too many are willing to allow.
They also might have actually comprehended the satire I employed.
adelinesdad obviously didn’t catch it.
davidpsummers is incorrect. I’m not opposed to Mrs. Romney. In fact, I’ve defended her when she was criticized unfairly and been interviewed and quoted in the New York Times after doing so.
As a political analyst, it’s my assessment that Mrs. Romney was sent out to inoculate her husband further, if possible, from having to release further tax returns.
This is not 1970.
Mrs. Romney is being smartly utilized as a chief surrogate for Mitt Romney for the prime purpose to humanize him. She’s good at it and he needs her to be effective, but on this she simply was not.
I wrote: …whether Mrs. Romney actually said “you people” or not, that’s what people heard, because this is how she sounded…
Perception is reality, especially in politics. This is the critical point.
The broad reaction from a large number of people was one part of the verdict, based on their perception of what they thought she said by watching her performance.
I laid it out in biting satire utilizing actually quotes from Mrs. Romney throughout the piece, which are notated with actual quotation marks, which could be checked if anyone had bothered to do so. What wasn’t said by Mrs. Romney is not in quotes. [You] “people” is not in quotes for a reason, but remains the substance of the satire, because of the wide reaction on social media to statements that left the perception that she and her husband are entitled to a different set of rules.
As a political writer, I use different tactics to unpack what is happening, offering analysis as I go. I’ve got a long track record of being accurate and assiduously faithful to facts and when I employ satire it’s on point, as is the column above.
I so appreciate everyone taking the time to read whenever I write here at TMV. Thanks again, especially to the people I heard from who got what was going on.
Enjoy your weekend. It’s been a rough 24 hours.
“Perception is reality”
No, it’s not. Especially not when perception is manipulated.
You might be right that I just didn’t get it. I think I did, but just didn’t appreciate it as much as you did. There’s no way I can know for sure.
Perception can certainly be a tool to insight. Think about instincts formed from decades of experience and learning – and from trial and error. Think about how nuances, facial expressions, inflections and behavioral clues make communication multidimensional. The richness, complexity and meaning of communication hardly stops at the literal word, which is also why writing can be so challenging and which is why no two writers have exactly the same style – and is why readers each perceive the ideas and pictures an author conveys in slightly different ways. It’s also why good cops develop instincts about people which gives them an edge. In any case, we all possess abilities to perceive more than just what is on the surface, although not all to the same degree. Thank god we’re not just computers.
Umm… listen to the entire clip. She does not fully enunciate the word “you” in any of her sentences. She does it much less in the sentence in question, but the “y” was there.
It is obviously debatable… and its relevance is also debatable… but my perception is that she said it.
My perception is that, as nymag first suggested, she most likely was going to say “We’ve given all you need to know…” and just as she was about say “you” she realized it wasn’t the right word and replaced it with “people”. This is another one of those things that happens in normal conversation that we normally don’t think twice about.
The only person who knows for sure is Mrs. Romney. I fully admit that I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt. Some people call that enabling. I call it treating her like a human being.
Speaking of enabling, I’m wondering why I haven’t heard anyone comment, and certainly no biting, on point satirical pieces written on, how the “you people” quote was originally reported as fact. It was only after it went viral that other media outlets pointed out that it was at least debatable, if not flat-out false, that she even said it. In my view, sensationalized media is as much as a problem as secretive politicians.
If perception is reality, than what was all the fuss about Obama’s “you didn’t build that” quote being taken out of context? It doesn’t really matter what “that” referred to. What matters is what we *perceived* that he was referring to. Nor does it matter that what we perceived was being manipulated by right wing pundits and politicians. Or maybe, it does matter.
“per·ceive (pr-sv)
tr.v. per·ceived, per·ceiv·ing, per·ceives
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.”
Perception is the act of grasping something, it isn’t about adapting clues to support a druther.
“mis·per·ceive (mspr-sv)
tr.v. mis·per·ceived, mis·per·ceiv·ing, mis·per·ceives
To perceive incorrectly; misunderstand.”
This implies that our perception can be at odds with reality, doesn’t it?