Judith Grey, writing for the Daily Beast has a column entitled Ann Romney’s Big Boo Boo. She goes to columnist trick #14: reflexive contrarianism and says, “oh, you think Ann Romney was the best part of the RNC and Clint Eastwood the weakest? WRONG! Ann Romney was the weakest.”
Her argument is that Ann should have talked more about her battles with MS and, particularly, about how Mitt stood by her.
Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, and so had the unique opportunity to speak in graphic detail of the crippling disease and the qualities her struggle illuminated in her husband. She should have spoken of the prospect of spending the rest of her life in a wheelchair and how Mitt’s unwavering support, love and perseverance helped her prevail.
. . .If he stayed up with her through the night, she should have mentioned it. If he had to carry her upstairs, she should have said so. If he emptied her bedpans, she should have shared that too.
Why, asks Grey, did Ann choose to speak with less detail and more generally about love instead of speaking specifically about the Romneys’ very difficult qualities, and Mitt’s admirable love for and loyalty toward his wife? Grey speculates maybe it would have come off as manipulative or that, by being specific, it would be difficult for those who didn’t share similar challenges to relate.
I think it’s a little easier than that. Mitt isn’t running against Newt Gingrich, against whom Mitt’s love and loyalty would be devastating. But, he’s running against Barack Obama who has a pretty solid family story of his own to tell. So, the personal aspect probably cancels out. The problem Mitt has is that the approach to health care he had to take to survive the primary is at odds with his personal story. It’s admirable to do whatever it takes, spend whatever it takes, and be there whenever necessary to tend to the health of a family member. Thing is, everybody would like the ability to do that for themselves. Everybody would like to know they can go to a doctor and get treatment for their spouse if they are struck down with an illness. Everybody would like to have the flexibility of schedule to go to the doctor with their sick spouse. But, not everybody can. No matter that they’re loyal and loving. In fact, I expect being loyal and loving but unable to provide care to a loved one is a special kind of hell.
So, the picture of Mitt being a loving and loyal spouse with the wherewithal to care for his wife on one hand but trying to repeal health care reform on the other hand, would feed into the narrative that Mitt Romney is out of touch and doesn’t know how normal people live. All in all, powerful and commendable as the Romney/MS story is, I have to disagree with Ms. Grey for faulting the Romney campaign for not getting so specific.
Personally, I think any criticism of a convention speech for not talking about XXX subject is incredibly weak and nitpicky (if nitpicky is indeed a word).
Could (Mitt) Romney have talked about war? Sure. Could Ann Romney have talked about her struggle with MS? Sure. Could Barack Obama have talked about (insert subject Obama did not talk about… Syria, meth/heroin use, Tibet, his grades at Columbia). Sure. All in all, very few people change their votes based upon what the candidates did say to get your vote. Why should we care about what the candidates didn’t say to get your vote?
I agree on the Ann Romney comments, except for this part– the manner in which she did mention that (and breast cancer) were so off hand as to nearly trivialize the effects it had on their lives. I can’t imagine it was such a small part of their daily lives.
BUT the omission of Afghanistan gave the DEMs a chance to drive a MAC truck through the REPs normal advantage on national security. Game set match.
snort, chortle. Paul C., just a suggestion, but next time perhaps you might want to consider saying “subject X” instead of “XXX subject”. Of course, it did get me to have a look at your comment, as I was wondering if somewhere really hot had frozen over.
I too, sure wish Governor Romney would talk about “war”, as I am somewhat concerned that he will drag us, willy nilly, into a doozy. I am concerned enough already about the President doing the same, but think that he probably has more advisors who might advise caution.
Ha! Made you look.
Although now that you mention it, I have read somewhere that online porn is becoming an online addiction facing many men. Perhaps it might belong in a convention speech after all?
Somehow I think that that particular “sacred cow” won’t be addressed by any political party.
This is an area where “shoulds” and “should nots” need to be advised with trepidation. Ann Romney’s is entitled to her apparent wish to maintain some privacy/dignity/stoicism about her very private health situation. Some people do cope through a stiff upper lip attitude and they are entitled to that as much as those who want to announce/discuss/advocate are entitled to their preferred approach. I don’t agree with Ann on much, but I would on this. That said, the financial implications of being sick and rich vs sick and poor do set her apart from most Americans. I’m sure she is grateful regarding the problems she doesn’t have.