This implies that our perception can be at odds with reality, doesn’t it?

Perception is the act of grasping something, it isn’t about adapting clues to support a druther.

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.

It is obviously debatable… and its relevance is also debatable… but my perception is that she said it.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

First Lady of Michigan

When her husband decided to enter electoral politics by running for Governor of Michigan in 1962, Lenore Romney said she and the family supported him: “I know it will be difficult – not easy. But we’re all dedicated with him for better government.”[37] She played a productive role in the 1962 campaign, making speeches before groups of Republican women[6] at a time when it was unusual for women to campaign separately from their husbands.[13] She was given the task of campaigning in the rural, naturally Republican outstate areas while he focused on the naturally Democratic Detroit area.[38]

Following George’s victory in November 1962, Lenore became the state’s First Lady. About her new role, she said her goal was to make “a real breakthrough in human relations by bringing people together as people – just like George has enunciated. Women have a very interesting role in this, and I don’t expect to be a society leader holding a series of meaningless teas.”[21]

She proved popular as a First Lady.[6][39] She was a frequent speaker at events and before civic groups and became known for her eloquence.[40] She was thus useful to his political career, just as she had been to his business one.[41] Like her husband, she did not make public appearances on Sundays.[13] He was re-elected in 1964 and 1966, and she campaigned frequently with him.[40] Moreover, she played more of an active and partisan role within her party than any Michigan first lady before or after her.[39] She knew his policy positions at least as well as any of his official aides, went with him on almost all of his out-of-state trips, and gave his speeches for him if sudden events made him unable to attend.[42] Over time an impression grew among some in the public that she was smarter than he was.[42] George Romney biographer T. George Harris concluded in 1967 that “she has been considerably more than a first lady.”[42]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the “add-on” Many would gloss over this.

Really, can’t imagine why anyone would go into national politics. Ugh!

Funny, because I think he should release those returns as well… but that isn’t nearly as amusing in a #hashtag.

This is the Wall Street 1% mentality in action. You can excuse it, but it does our democracy no service to do so.