Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ann Romney skewers that big talking phony, without mentioning his name

Ann Romney skewers that big talking phony, without mentioning his name

The key moment for me in Ann Romney’s speech was when she said that Mitt doesn’t like to talk about how he helps others:

Mitt doesn’t like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point.

That was the home run of the evening, if people were listening.

It summed up for me so much of what is wrong with the other guy, without mentioning the other guy.  He is a poser, a money-hungry power-grabbing phony who brags about how much he cares about others while lining his pockets and playing people off against each other to advance himself.  I saw through his stage act early on, as the rest of the nation had the tingles.

And the same can be said for many of that other guy’s most vocal supporters, who pad resumes with public service because it looks good and helps their career advancement.  The Hollywood moguls and entertainers who want the government to take more of what you have but don’t voluntarily pony up themselves.  The Elizabeth Warrens of the world who lecture everyone else endlessly about the need to pay more taxes while amassing fortunes through exorbitant salaries enabled by the fact that their employers are tax exempt.

I hope people heard the powerful message in that sentence.

As an aside, what really shocked me was when I channel surfed to the networks and saw Bob Schieffer and many others gushing with praise.  I could barely stand more than a couple of minutes of MSNBC, but reaction in the sane world was much more positive than I expected.

Here’s the full speech:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Amen and Amen!!

I think you’re right. What’s a more compassionate act: giving to a charity because your heart has been stirred to do so, or paying more taxes to a wasteful bloated government so that they can decide who needs charity most? These are true words: “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

What a wonderful, classy night from the ladies who spoke!

Compare and contrast with some of the shrieking cankered carlins of the Collective, and it’s like a breath of the morning.

She did a great job I thought and yeah I caught her line about being private about personal stuff Romney has done for others.
What amazed me afterwards was Juan Williams telling thoughts about her speech. It takes some biased eyes and ears to conclude she seemed to be a typical “corporate” wife. What sort of person perceives that?
That borders on racially motivated stereotyping in my book.

And Juan Williams had best check his objectivity deficit.
He said what if turned around would be about the same as a conservative suggesting Michelle Obama had that Aunt Jemima look about her.
If he represents the liberal take on things…he best stop pretending to be objective and open minded.
Normal folks dont think in stereotypical ways that jump to some “group” association with an individual.

I watched it on CSPAN so I missed the loons at MSNBC . But I am glad to hear that CBS was fair in its coverage. Ann gave a very good speech. Not a barn burner, but it was solid and well done. Christie’s was okay too.

I liked Walker, Cruz and Love’s speeches myself.

Here is a clip of Williams strange take on things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0x5KLeeGpE

listingstarboard | August 29, 2012 at 11:04 am

I loved her line about having a “real marriage”. Right back at ya Michelle the beard. So inside the RNC we have highly intelligent capable compassionate patriotic women giving barn burning speeches about American exceptionalism and outside Democrat women are parading around in vagina costumes shrieking about their genitalia.

Speaking of MSNBC, those race baiting extremists cut away from every minority speaker. Maddow spoke dismissively of the former Congressman from Alabama as they showed his last five seconds. MSNBC racists and their nearly all white panel was a more pressing thing to show during those speeches. They can’t have proof clouding their lie that Republicans are all white racists. They wonder why they have 12 viewers.
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/29/despicable-msnbc-lapdogs-whitewash-minority-speeches-from-rnc-coverage/

Any blue state that can send Toomey to DC .. can sent Romney to DC.

Re: Schiefer ,Pelly. I also saw their reaction. It was effusive ,sincere , and dead on. By their reactions they innoculated themselves to a certain degree when they return to form and bias. I do not think either are deliberate hypocrits but can come off that way by the nature of their thought process. I now believe most liberals are sincere and are not trying to be disengenious but instead just see the world cattiewompous bassakwards.

    Rosalie in reply to secondwind. | August 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Your comment brought to mind Reagan’s famous comment: “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they are ignorant but that they know so much that isn’t so”.

She’s a hottie, no doubt about it. I’m married and I love my wife, but I lurve her! LOL

Professor, (or anyone) just heard Chris Wallace at 11:00 A.M. on FOX make the statement that Ann Romney was “popping out babies” (rather than “having children”) before Mitt became successful.

Does anyone think that this same terminology, if applied to Michelle Obama, would create a firestorm of accusations of racism?

What is going on with FOX, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, etc, etc (you know, the supposed “right-wing” outlet (according to libs)? Are they just trying to be as “fair and balanced” as MSNBC?

    gracepmc in reply to ClinkinKy. | August 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    I heard that also and was a little taken aback particularly because it seemed to be said with a touch of disdain. Perhaps Juan and Chris Wallace, of late, are getting a little anxious at the prospect of a Republican win. Then they would really have to take a real commitment to what they might believe in.

If you’re a supporter of Romney/Ryan, or definitely leaning towards them, I think most of the speeches probably resonated with you. However, if you’re an undecided about or in opposition to (though not a die-hard Obama supporter) Romney/Ryan, I would doubt that you got few “tingles” up the leg.

    lightning in reply to ALman. | August 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    You are flat wrong. I am not a Republican and honestly probably will not vote for Romney or Obama. I am an Independent voter who has very strong libertarian leanings. The reason I am not a member of the libertarian party is that I also happen to be a Christian female therapist. If you know anything about the Libertarian party they tend to be mostly male, atheists, and absolutely hate anything to do with the field of mental health. That being said, I personally found her speech to be compelling and refreshing. Her focus on commonalities, on the boring aspects of everybody’s life, and how each of us works to deal with these (and reality) was a breath of fresh air. Certainly beats hearing about turning tides and the other cult of personality crud comming from the other major party. I liked that it was not overtly political also. Her speech did move me and did make me view her husband in a different light. That was a good speech and has painted her husband in a different light in my mind. So, if that was what she and the RNC intended – job well done Mrs. Romney.

      ALman in reply to lightning. | August 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm

      Good for you. However, I stand by my observation. Though it, my observation, may be proven to be wrong; I, on the other hand, am not “flat wrong.” Rather, I’m as right as rain!

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 29, 2012 at 11:53 am

This story about how Romney exercised heroic decisive leadership in locating the 14 years old missing daugher of a Bain associate is very compelling.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/30/chain-email/viral-internet-story-says-mitt-romney-helped-locat/

Y’all aren’t considering Juan Williams’ remarks as a whole. He didn’t relate so much to Anne Romney, but in his view, Artur Davis struck gold. Why would that be? I think the two speeches worked very well to appeal to their target classes of voters, which were different.

Juan’s core concern is not that that Mitt is a good guy, or that he has a good marriage. To him, those concerns don’t have much bearing on the vote. For him, Anne Romney’s speech was nice, but unlikely to appeal much to independent or Liberal voters. It would appeal, however, to the capital “C” conservative voters in the base, and it did that very well. Those people who need to see Romney as a family values man just got their ticket punched.

Artur Davis’ speech was explicitly directed to about 6 million voters that delivered the victory to Barack Obama last time, and who have become disenchanted with Obama’s performance in office. That speech struck a chord with Juan, because that is what is most important to him. To him, the point that the Obama administration has failed to live up to normal, liberal, Democratic party standards is key to this election.

Both the base and the swing votes are key to this election.

I’d like to add one other observation about Anne’s speech: one point she makes, that Mitt’s good deeds aren’t something he discusses, is merely typical of both Christians and wealthy professionals in this country. It’s probably something that people Barack Obama, and in turn much of the Democratic Party at the national level, do not understand.

In my experience, wealthy and professional-level Americans like nothing better than to be able to do something worthwhile. They will always kick in some money for a worthy cause, and they will even more happily contribute their skill set, if they know that the result will be worthwhile. And it’s a badge of honor not to talk about it. It’s that old “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing” effect. I’ve seen it over and over in action.

And they never get credit for it, even from people who know about it, provided those people are accustomed to living off the government.

It’s the damnedest thing, but I have listened to more than one recipient of large, private help, make galloping assumptions about the lack of charity of Republicans, even as they take the money. People who live off the government tend to think in terms of charity cases being entitled to charity (they “deserve” help) rather than in terms of recognizing generosity.

People who live off a market with customers have a wholly different viewpoint.

I am sick to death of the ingratitude of the government class.

    ALman in reply to Valerie. | August 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Excellent. At the funeral of the sort of persons about whom you write, the phrase “Why I never knew that” is frequently heard. It’s usually about acts of kindness, charity, and friendship that were simply a part of the person’s character that were not “advertised.” They were the sort who became embarassed by attention being drawn to themselves and what they did.

    Rosalie in reply to Valerie. | August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    I think you make good points, but I still think Williams’ comment about Ann Romney looking like a “corporate wife” was totally classless no matter where he was coming from.

Henry Hawkins | August 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Ann Romney started off a bit wobbly, but soon chilled and really seemed to enjoy herself during a very good speech.

As for Juan Williams, he’s like a recovering liberal who relapses every couple weeks. His ruthless assessment of Ann Romney’s speech constitutes a career low for him, and reveals he still suffers an easy willingness to place agenda ahead of truth. Williams’ remarks smacked of Journolist-like involvement, a predetermined, prewritten negative review. Williams’ use of the term ‘corporate wife’ as a perjorative comes straight out of the White House.

She was gorgeous last night and her demeanor was very appealing.

Brit Hume called it the best speech he’s ever seen by a political wife.

She’s a huge asset they need to use more and more.

Great post, Professor. One of your best since I’ve been following you.

You clearly articulated a great many things that I (and I’d imagine many other conservatives) have been thinking for a long time.

Bravo.

great unknown | August 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Please, Professor. As a lawyer, you must have some mastery of language. Instead of “big talking”, it should be “big-talking”. Otherwise, the word “big” refers to “He Who Was Not Named.” I can think of very few ways that the adjective “big” can apply to him…

I was in the car traveling last night and listened to
all of Ann Romney’s speech and half of Christies speech.

The words of Ann Romney’s speech were mostly fine, however, her voice inflection was way off. Yes, one would have to be a fan to glorify the speech. However, she is a wife,
not a politician, reading words someone else wrote for her.
I give her a solid B for effort.

The first half of Christie’s speech was way low keyed in
my opinion. I thought he got a solid B as well. He said nothing outrageous…didn’t tell anyone to “shut up” LOL!

I heard that Love and Cruz gave nice speeches as well.

Nothing that was a barnburner tho. Nothing to compare to
Palin’s speech in 2008 that brought the world to attention.
Perhaps Ryan will do that tonight.

    Browndog in reply to Amjean. | August 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    I understand all you have to go in is the audio of the speech.

    What you missed were the critical elements of facial expressions, mannerisms, and reactions.

    I was very cynical of her giving a speech, and expectations were very, very low.

    I was blown away. Her sense of strength and fortitude was Palinesque at times.

    Too bad you missed it.

    Not directed to you >>(Further: though tempting, I do not think commenting on her physical appearance is appropriate)

What a contrast of this lovely patriotic wife to the “angry black woman” (barack¨s words)
Very noticeable was her phrasing of “blessed with five sons” when did Americans stop using that word when speaking of their children? Now it is Juan¨s vulgarity of popping out babies
I watched on PBS but that silly commentator; Gwen made the stupid statement to Newt Gingrich that there was no diversity at the convention immediately before Ted Cruz
The camera focused on the delegation from Texas during his speech showing two black men; one wearing the lone star shirt and hat and the other wearing a suit: then the camera showed a Native American delegate wearing traditional jewelry and shirt and another one sitting between two Anglo ladies:
There were two very dark men wearing the lone star shirt and hat who probably were Chicano:
How about that lovely first lady of Puerto Rico, Luce´ Fortuño speech¿

“…Is it true that Mitt Romney closed down his firm, Bain Capital, and flew 30 workers to New York to look for the missing daughter of one of his colleagues?…”

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-04-29/story/fact-check-story-about-mitt-romney-and-missing-child-true#ixzz24ynCeKYY

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend