by Benjamin J. Kirby
I am really not sure what ot make of the Tia Mitchell piece in the Tampa Bay Times today on Ann Romney.
Why would anything think it's a good thing that a candidate for the highest office in the land needs his wife to "unzip" him?
Look, I get what they're trying to portray, here -- I really do. Mitt is a buttoned-up business nerd who can't be himself on the campaign trail. Ann is the cool lady who helps Mitt be Mitt!
But can't they see -- can't anyone see -- that's the problem. Do you want to elect a guy who can't actually be himself in public without his wife there to "unzip" him? I don't want a president who constantly needs his wife around to make sure the "real" Mitt is the one making the right decision. I don't need a president hiding behind a zipper... or something.
Plus, they're kind of off-message, too:
Ann Romney isn't the go-to person for campaign strategy or policy decisions. But when Mitt wants an honest opinion or perspective on a sensitive topic, he calls his wife. She said she never wants him to feel alone in this endeavor.
"I feel like my role really is to be able to give him just comfort in going through this very difficult process that we're going through," she said, "and knowing that I'm standing by his side, that I trust him, that I'm rooting for him, that I'm with him."
That doesn't make any sense to me. Is Ann the one to "unzip" him? Or is she just going to "give him just comfort..." Is she just "standing by his side," or...
Romney said she wants people to know her husband is compassionate, competent and the right person to lead the nation. That is why she changed her mind about allowing him to run for office one last time, her son said.
...did she "allow" her husband to run for office one last time.
This is not the most important thing, but it is an important thing. The Romney Campaign -- and the Romney Family -- need to figure out what in the hell the story is, and stick to it.
# # # #
Interesting piece from Bill Maxwell at the Tampa Bay Times on the sudden lack of faith and God in the political discourse and on the campaign trail.
I agree with Mr. Maxwell on why the talk of faith and God has been largely absent from either President Obama or Mitt Romney. I've been thinking about this quite a bit, because I'm wondering when we're going to get to Mitt's Mormonism.
I don't want to use this post, this space to attack the Romneys for being Mormon. It would be easy for a jackass like me to parody Mormonism in general, but I'll leave that to better qualified folks.
Now, as you know, we spent a long, long time listening to an awful lot of awful people say a lot of awful, awful stuff about President Obama, mostly with respect to his religious beliefs and his place of birth (if you hadn't heard, it's Hawaii). Look, I don't want to get into a quid pro quo situation here: We put up with birtherism, now we get four months of Mormon-hating...
That's not the answer.
Mr. Maxwell seems to be looking for a balance, though -- and I'd agree with him, though to be sure, it wasn't always that way. The faith of a presidential candidate is not the most important thing -- and no, it doesn't matter what faith -- but it does matter, because faith informs thinking. Will we see a thoughtful, in-depth piece on Mormonism and Romney's practice of it? Here's hoping. For all the right reasons.
# # # #
Steve Singiser has your must-read polling post of the day over at DailyKos.
# # # #
I genuinely don't know how a state "opts-out" of a federal law. I really don't.
# # # #
Wow, could my old Congressman -- Charlie Rangel -- really lose?
# # # #
Does him tink Obamacare make us wike babies? Awww, dat so pwecious.
-- More later --
Comments