jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (38 posts)

Ann Romney Changes Tune

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/09/a … our-lives/

    I thought at the GOP convention she said they had financial struggles?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What's the problem? Your linked article puts words in her mouth.

      Romney had stock he could sell, but they still lived frugally. If she said that she knew what it was like to struggle financially, you would be all over her for lying 'because they had stock'.

      How about, they lived frugally, but they weren't struggling. How does that sound?

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Would you like to watch the full interview?  Check out Meet The Press's website.  You can decide if the article "put words in her mouth."

        I still don't see how being born into money, and never having to worry about paying the rent makes you empathetic, especially with the party she is in.  Human beings can twist their minds into pretzels though.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          She said they haven't had financial struggles, right?

          Ok, when did she say before that they had?

          If she 'changed her tune', where was the change?

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Eating tuna off an ironing board? LOL.  Lies.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why is it lies?

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Because she's attempting to portray her early situation as equivalent with those who actually have had to do such things.  Even if she did that, there was always a safety valve to fall back on that isn't there for most.  It's disingenuous at best to claim she has some sort of understanding of financial struggles.

                AND, she admits that in the link I posted.  She changes her tune and talks about different kinds of struggles, which are real, because she is a breast cancer survivor, and she does have MS.  The money issue though is obviously a farce.  You would also think a woman who had the sicknesses she had would be in favor of universal health care for all, so other women who have those diseases don't have to go bankrupt, but that would be asking too much.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wait wait wait. Let's make this easier. I'll number my questions, you number your answers.

                  1 - Even if it's true, it's a lie?
                  2 - When did she say that they struggled financially?

                  1. profile image0
                    Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's likely a lie, but even if it isn't, it doesn't make the point she wants it to.

                    From her RNC speech:

                    "We were very young. Both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage, and you know? We just didn't care. We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping, and ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses. Our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen. Those were very special days."

    2. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, if she can change her tune, it must mean she has a song and can hold a note... Or not.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics … ars/56321/

    Basement apartment rent $62 but instead of dropping $400 a month for a dump, Daddy George Romney buys them a $42,000 house which they sell 7 years later for $90,000.

    Typical life of the starving student couple.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That was a decade later. It doesn't detract from the life they lived as students.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The life they lived as students on stock earnings.
        Their next move, instead of another apartment, they got Daddy to front the money for a house. Which, is sounds like, they didn't have to pay back the loand and made money on the house.

        It's the difference between being homeless and dumpster diving and going glamping.

        They have no clue, no clue, what working families live like. They've never walked in the average Joe's shoes. And attempts to make themselves sound like they were "slummin" just don't ring true.
        Sorry.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The life they lived on stock earnings was frugal. So what? A frugal life is a frugal life. I spent a year with our family living off money I made in Forex markets. It wasn't a lot, but it was enough. Just cause the money came from trading doesn't make it any more.

          As for the loan, I don't know. Generally loans are paid back. However, it has nothing to do with the topic.

          I'm actually surprised at you MM... I like it better when you don't defend the petty attacks. Living a frugal life off stock earnings is still a frugal life. The Romney's get attacked  for being rich, and having more than they need. They also get attacked for the times when they actually had very little. Go figure.

          But, it's OK for Michelle to talk about the coffee table Barack got out of a dumpster... that just shows how human they are. Come on MM...

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I can agree with you that both Ann and Michelle talking about their early days made their husbands seem more human.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But still a bad thing in Ann's case?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You were denying that Ann was implying that they knew what it was to struggle.  That is a different point than humanizing Mitt.

                I don't think it's a bad thing when anyone does it.  However, in the case of Ann and Mitt, it's pretty absurd given the reality of their background.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think that is what she was implying. She called it a special time. Not a difficult time. Not a time of hardship. She directly said(more than implied) that it was a good time. How does what you think she was implying trump what she actually said?

                  What about the reality of Barack's and Michelle's backgrounds? Expensive private schools, lucrative job offers, even with little experience... Why the double standard?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I have not defended either of them.   You are defending Ann.  Where is the double standard?

          2. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Mitt and Ann are getting attacked because their effort to make it look like they have lived like the rest of us is disengenuous. Romney's father owned GM and was Govenor of Michigan. That is like Trump tellling me that he was a self made man when he inherited 400 million from his father. don't you think with such a tremedous advantage that you have to work really hard to be unsucessful? Crude analogy, but you can see where it leads. Mitt and Ann are not every man and everywoman and for them to sell that is a lie.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    The point is that Ann Romney has tried to make it sound like she and Mitt know what it is to struggle.  One can argue over the fine points, but it is clear that, in an effort to show that she and Mittens can empathize with the less fortunate, she has implied a struggle that didn't exist.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      She didn't say anything to imply that it was a struggle. She didn't say they struggled. She didn't say it was hard. She just said it was a special time.

      It's not arguing over fine points, it's people who don't like Romney putting words in her mouth. The article OP linked to called it a 'flip flop', because she said the same thing at the RNC that she said in 1994.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is common among politicians to frame a story about their background to imply some sort of experience to connect with a particular audience.  It isn't just Ann who does it. 

        Why are you arguing about it?  It's clear that was her intention.  Just because she was clever enough to not use the word "struggle" doesn't mean the intent isn't crystal clear.  Seriously, Jaxson, you've been bending over so far backwards to defend the obvious that I'm surprised you can still stand up straight.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ok... you want to put words in her mouth, fine. Go ahead.

          Rational discussion is almost impossible to find on HP.

          You know what I got out of it? They know what it's like to live off a little. They had stock to fall back on, yes, but they still lived a very modest, frugal life together at the time.

          The whole message that this is a flip-flop though, requires claiming that Ann said things she didn't say.

  4. LauraD093 profile image85
    LauraD093posted 4 years ago

    Sooner28 I always have to reply to your threads...this one made my day if not for the thread itself for the dialogue generated. I have lost quite a bit of political steam since getting older but reading your hubs/threads remind me of a time when I too could really burn hot over political deceit and lies. I suppose too may lies and false-histories like Ann Romney's fall flat for me today.  To widen public appeal a speech writer will make both her and Mitt the poster children for Middle America. Most people with IQ's over 2 know its BS but buy into the fantasy anyway. Ah...politics it still is great to be an American in other countries both our heads would have already been put up on spikes. Keep the" home fires burning!"

  5. Petra Vlah profile image60
    Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago

    Let me be real cynical here.
    WHAT IF by saying “those were special times” Ann was implying that they were “poor but happy”? Shouldn’t the rest of us get the clue? Shouldn’t we get over ourselves and leave them alone to enjoy the millions they worked so “hard” for?
    And by the way, since tuna was good enough for them, it should be good for us, so let’s eat more of it and maybe we can save enough money to buy a horse and take it to the next Olympics in Rio. By eating plenty of tuna, we will not even need health insurance…. Just think about it

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ha!Ha!

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    It appears that "student loans" to the Romneys really is that $25K Romney encouraged college graduates who can't find a job to borrow from their parents to start a business!
    Only in their case it was $42,000.
    But they more than doubled in in 7 years ... so why can't everyone else?
    roll

 
working