Having spent time at political conventions, I can tell you that a speech always sounds different inside the hall than it comes across on TV. Inside, it’s easy to get caught up in the fervor, project the partisan cheers onto a nation. But when you’re watching in a quiet room with your spouse and your Twitter feed, you view these speeches more skeptically. You approach them with more questions, such as, “Why does Paul Ryan’s iPod stop at the letter ‘L’?” And “What’s that Ann Romney just said about tuna fish?”
That tuna fish question came up during Mrs. Romney’s much-heralded Tuesday night address, which, depending how you feel about Condoleezza Rice, might have been the biggest hit in Tampa this week. In her red dress, with her broad smile, Romney showed why she has been such a campaign asset this year: She’s sincere and warm and comfortable with crowds, she likes people, she loves her husband.
Comments
This column is petty and telling. The fact that they chose to live simply during grad school doesn't make it less real. You've shown your true colors on this one.
Actually, it does make it less real. As someone who came from a comfortable & supportive background, I was always aware I could get help if I needed, and I always knew this was different then those who didn't have that support network. Than the Romney's don't know the difference says a lot about why they think everything is easy for everyone by just trying harder. They have only met rich people like them and don't understand most of the people in this country and what they live through. It leads to bad policy.
Friend you obviously didn't watch the convention this week if you can say something like that.
So looking forward to next week for your article, I hope you will discuss the financial situation of our country.
I couldn't agree more. I found it revolting the first time I read Ann Romney's account of how she and Mitt just scraped by in those years, living on an inherited stock portfolio. One estimate is that in today's dollars, the stock would've been worth over three hundred thousand dollars; that buys a fair amount of tuna fish. The frightening thing is that I suspect that the Romneys really believe the things they say -- for instance, Mitt Romney advising young people to just "borrow money from your parents" to start a business. I suspect Ann Romney really believes that living on a stock portfolio you got from your parents is what counts as hard times. There's nothing wrong with leaders who have a lot of money, but leaders who have no clue what life is like for the majority of Americans whose lives will be affected by their policies -- that's a problem.
This criticism is weak. The story that Ann told was one that made them look like simple, ordinary people as newlyweds. This is an important point, because the narrative about Mitt suggests that he was born into wealth and has always been rich. Not completely true, as Ann pointed out in her speech. They are normal people, who raised a great family, and are now interested in saving the country. That part of their story needed to be told, even if committed liberals do not buy it. Most Americans were endeared by that speech.
"Most Americans" were not watching it and not paying attention. They were in bed early because they had to get up early the next morning to go to work.
millions of americans didn't have a job to go to the next morning...
More hate mongering from the Globe. First we are told that the Romneys cannot relate to "regular" people and when they try, they can't be taken seriously. Joanna, it's much easier to sit on your high horse and comment on things. The Romneys are actually out there trying to make a difference. They have helped many more people from all walks of life than you will ever. Success is achieved by taking 100% responsibility for yourself and not blaming others for your failures. If you fail, you try again. I don't agree with Governor Romney on everything, but I do like his direction better than President Obama's. President Obama wants to blame people's problems on others rather than telling people that they have the ability to make their own success. A common theme of the speakers at the RNC was that if someone wants it bad enough, they can make it happen. It was not about waiting for the government to make it all better.
Give me a break EdA. Did you stop to look up the words "hate mongering" before you wrote them, or are you content manipulating and distorting the meaning oflanguage? If it "feels like the truth" then go ahead and say it, right? The Republicans are happy to have you in their camp. The reality is, "wanting it bad enough" has its limitations. I'm so tired of the myopic Horatio Alger fantasies that dominate right wing discourse. "Wanting it bad enough" wasn't even true in the frontier days when western settlers eventually needed federal troops to come defend them from Native neighbors. America has never been an individualistic, free market success story, and good for us for not requiring it to be such.
remember that Mitt Romney did not take a salary as a governor or president of the Olympics , but Pres. Obama & Michelle do not mind spending the taxpayers money to travel around the country for fund raisers & vacations and reimbursing for very little money....
That Air Force One costs $181 thousand dollars per hr, plus security. 210 fund raisers and counting.
*****************JEALOUSY Thy name is JOANNA WEISS*************************
I don't think you read the article. It isn't their wealth, but the ignorance that their wealth causes, that is the problem.
This comment has been removed.
Perceptive, thoughtful, and intriguing analysis!
It isn't their wealth, but the ignorance caused by their wealth, that is worrying.
Ignorance isn't caused by wealth any more than virtue is caused by poverty. I know many people who have never been rich who are just as clueless as the Romney's. I've also known wealthy people who are as clear eyed and caring about the world as anyone could be. Rich or poor the question is can you see and empathize with things beyond your own reality. That's where the Romney's fall short.
This comment has been removed.
I don't understand why the Romneys have to pretend like they ever really struggled. All grad students and any one on a similar budget eat canned tuna and make sacrifices. That doesn't make you poor. In a situation like that, you feel it's only temporary. And it was temporary for the Romneys. It's not temporary for a lot of people, even a lot of grad students. The Romneys can't "relate" to the vast majority of people in this country. I don't think they can even relate to someone earning the median wage and is far from truly "poor" but is, indeed, broke. But I don't understand why they have to "relate." As said in the article, why insult our intelligence? We all know you are crazy rich, the jig is up. But that doesn't mean you can't understand how policy can work to help people of lesser means and lay out a plan describing that policy rather than trying to convince everyone that you know what they're going through first hand. And I'm sorry, but if Ann Romney wants to make a speech pertaining to a political campaign, she should have to talk about policy. Personally I am sick of all the soft crap when it comes to political candidates. Outline a policy, show me your resume, show me where you went to school, prove you deserve the job more than the other guy, and I'll hire you. When I go for a job interview, my husband doesn't show up and tell a funny anecdote about eating tuna. Politics is so stupid.
It wasn't even a fact that they were struggling in grad school. Neither worked. They lived off the $ that Romney's father gave them in American Motors stock. Per Bob Thomas's article in the Boston Globe when Mitt was running for Senotor or Governor , they had $42K a year to live on. That was 3 times what my husband and I had at that time. We could have lived large on that ammount. Then Daddy Romney bought them their first home. So stuggled they didn't.
She is a lovely woman, a great mom.grandmother and wife. Poor she never was.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
What a pathetic column. We should be on the dole with the government paying everybodys way. Funny, the Kennedys had riches, kids on drugs, killed a person, wreck marriages, ruins women with whom they married, but what the heck they are Kennedys. You want Romney to appologize for making it, or what we used to call the American Dream. I can tell you I will never appologize and I will fight anyone trying to take my money to pay for clueless people on the dole. And as for you Ms Weiss, you represent why this great nation is in the condition it is in.
If Barack Obama gets back in office, WE WILL BE GREECE in 4 years.
What pathetic comments you make. The Kennedys didn't pretend to be people they weren't even with all their money. Who cares if the Romneys have money -- good luck to them. That's why they don't need to pretend to be Middle Class; we all know they're not! The reason why this country is in the "condition" it's in is because George W. Bush put us there with his 8 years of war to make money for the huge defense industry and collateral industries for corporate profits. Republicans = $$War Machine - they don't care about the human lives lost to make their profits. Ms. Weiss can hold her head high! Obama 2012!
Still blaming George Bush, same old story. Start taking you rmeds again and maybe you will see the truth. Those who aspire to the American Dream don't need the government dole. Kennedy and Obama have lied to all you democrats that the way to success is to live off the federal, state and local governments. Guess what, that is the story of Greece, and look at them now.
PS - I see you also follow the Sox and are part of Red Sox Nation, blah blah blah. You live in a fantasy world of lies, both in sports and politics and life.
Superb column. When Mr. Romney ran for the Senate in 1994 Mrs. Romney, when asked about issues in Roxbury, effusively spoke of her understanding of these issues. She then added that she and Mr. Romney had many friends from West Roxbury. That is the depth of her understanding of Boston and she had lived in the area over twenty years at the time. It makes one think how much does she care about issues outside of her bubble.
Even 20 years ago you did not travel around Roxbury and Mattapan and parts of Dorchester, never mind now...those areas are competing with Chicago for the most weekly shootings.
As usual the liberal bias of the Globe shines through your piece. Funny how none of you will delve into the O'Bama's in the same rightous way.
Like how did they get free rides through school,but of course all that info is sealed. Or how about Michells $350,000.00 job in Chicago that was a job in name only, not filled when he was elected.......and of cfourse arranged by Val Jarrett. You didn't mention in your p[iece that the Rommney's don't have hired cooks and cleaning staff or nannies like the Kennedys did but they are Dems right.
the democrats do not like the truth.
This column is such a reach - what's your point? That she wasn't poor? She never claimed to be poor - only to have not started out rich. You don't have to be poor to have empathy for the poor or to devise policies that can help the poor. You don't have to jump of a building to know that it will hurt when you land. Is your point that you have to have been poor to be an effective President? There are things to criticize Mitt Romney for, but this isn't one of them. You can do better.
Pasta and tuna fish are clear allusions to struggling to get by. Mitt's dad had plenty of money and Mitt attended expensive schools. Nothing wrong with those things, but there's a big difference between pulling oneself up by his bootstraps out of poverty and getting by on savings and stock sales for a little while. Mrs. Romney herself was implicitely claiming that "you have to have been poor" to claim authenticity in America and, in turn, enhance one's claim to the presidency. Snark27, you can do better.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
I did not get the impression Ms. Romney was all that comfortable with that role (presenting themselves as having had financial struggles too). It came across more as an assignment than heartfelt. I would fault 'handlers' for that. Whoever is suggesting to the Romneys that the key to winning the election is to project an image of someone who might live in your own neighborhood is giving them bad advice. He needs to focus on proving his policies are better than his opponents.
I don't understand why people need to be poor. Achievement is something that used to be something we all aspire to. I've never been jealous of those that have more than me, either through inheritance or on their own. By today's standards, achievements and wealth are a bad thing it seems. Would it make this writer happier if Ann Romney was poor? Would her words mean more? Do you people honestly believe that people like the Romneys don't care about others? Really? They've given more to charity than most will ever make. They've given more of themselves than many of us. So please, enough with this class warfare.
Her words would be different if she had any clue what life was like for most Americans. We don't want her to be _poor_, but we really, really don't want her to _claim_ she knows what middle class life is like.
I don't want her to be poor. Honestly, I don't want anyone to be poor, but there will be poor people, some because of their own behavior and some for no fault of their own. What I find offensive is for a wealthy woman who has never known privation to suggest that she and the governor ever had to scrimp on meals or nutrition because of limited resources. It is pandering, but more importantly, it insults the intelligence of those who listen to this nonsense. Whether one agrees with the governor and his charming, admirable spouse or not, any suggestion that they had to watch the bottom line when planning their weekly meal plan is just plain offensive. But shockingly, it seems to work just fine for some people.
Joanna, I think you're being a little hard on Ann Romney. In terms of political speeches, which are more often than not full of lies, her imbellishing a bit about her years together with Mitt while he was in grad school is hardly worthy of such scrutiny. Given the perception of Mitt, his handlers were merely trying to have Ann speak to something where there was an element of connection to the common man. I'm no fan of Mitt but I can totally understand why Ann said what she did in support of her husband. She only did what a good wife, especially the wife of a presidential candidate, would do.
Joanna,
You are turning into the Chris Matthews of the Globe!! The same person who gushes over the hypocritical Michelle & her husband. Ann Romney has oversome MS and breast cancer. So I am sure you think those are phony too. Liberal hate speech at its finest. It's amazing that liberals can tell exactly what is in a person's heart. I can tell you are clearly jealous of this magnificent woman and it has tainted any objectivity.
I am correct because I said it. So we are to believe that you are correct. Look no further than the Kerrys or the kennedys than to see see the biggest bunch of phonies and hypocrits. Wont' see that in your column, ever, will we!!
Mitt Romney gave away ALL his inheritence and earned what he now has and when he and Ann were married they lived in that basement apartment not on the trust funds like the Kennedys. He left Michigan to prove on his own to make his own way in life and not to trade on the family name like the Kennedy's do (especially like Joe the third is).
His kindness to people in need is part of his faith and did not flaunt it and I am glad they brought those two families that he helped to the convention, because all the democrats do is portray him as a heartless corporate raider. Like the adv. with the man's wife dying of cancer that he has no feeling (she died 6 yrs after Mitt left Bain and they also had health insurance in the meantime). When someone like Mitt who's wife is a cancer surviver and has MS he certainly understands people with illnesses.
Of course the democrats would love to see everyone dependent on the government because they then can control votes. Mitt Romney believes that individuals should have the right to success and not to be a serf to the unions and democrats.
Sharp analysis of a loving and devoted but clueless spouse's speech. Thanks for writing.
This is a great column. While there's nothing wrong with getting some help from the parents, or inheriting stock wealth, I have a problem with Mrs. Romney's distortion of that reality. Trying to hide fortunate circumstances plays into the mythic narrative that Republicans want to believe about individualism and hard work - the "we built that" delusion. It just isn't true that any individual can pull himself up by his bootstraps, and it never has been. From the founding, federal intervention built, expanded, and sustained the United States in concert with individual initiative. To play at Horatio Alger by highlighting tuna fish in order to stake some more authentic claim to the presidency reflects the myopia and delusions of the current Republican party. We already had a Gilded Age in the nineteenth century. Do we really want another one now?
What a bunch of blah, blah Trixie: In other words, nothing better to say - give Weiss an early Friday 'off-day.' She is obviously burned out with scrambled brains on the topic. Too much GOP Convention and late nights. Sounds like the kind of stuff bullying teenagers write on FaceBook.
Playing poor...like Elizabeth Warren?? The only thing missing in her early ads was an image of a covered wagon trecking out to Oklahoma.
Elizabeth Warren WAS poor! Unlike Queen Ann pandering with stories about Williard wearing Kirkland brand shirts. (In their LaJolla mansion with a car elevator, no doubt)
Agree with both Native Bos and Cantibrigiano. Typical BG double standard. Maybe Ms. Weiss should ask EW what she's done to champion the cause "of her own kind," native American Indians. The answer: not a thing.
Did Ann Romney really "play poor"? Perhaps she really did *believe* that she and Mitt were poor when they lived in a basement apartment, when she washed floors, etc. Why? Mitt grew up in a wealthy family. Ann Romney probably did, also: they moved in the same social circle (they met at Ann's 16th birthday party, for example). So money was scarcely a concern for them; wealth was like the air they breathed. So when Mitt was in school, and many of the day-to-day circumstances of the Romneys' lives were what the rest of us consider as middle-class, Ann Romney could easily have felt she was *poor*. Remember, during the Republican primary season, her husband offered a ten-*thousand*-dollar bet -- with less concern than I (for one) would have about betting only ten-dollars. The Romneys apparently think wealth is the norm and have little idea of how ordinary -- or truly poor -- people live. It's often said that wealth shouldn't disqualify someone from public office. Okay. Franklin Roosevelt was wealthy -- but thanks in large part to his wife, Eleanor, he was in touch with the lives of "little people." The question for the Romneys is whether they understand -- not intellectually, but in their guts -- what life is like for the 99%, and especially for the poor, near-poor, and precarious middle-classes. I suspect that the Romneys lack such understanding, and that their economic and social policies will not be grounded solidly in reality.
The only thing I see being overstepped is the definition of journalism, seriously, this is a rather plebeian article? Maybe Ms. Weiss and Lizzy Warren can have a pow wow.
What a horrible example of bias. First of all, she never said she was poor. She simply related, as most adult human beings can relate to, that period of time when you starting out as a young family. The challenges seem bigger and the stuff seems less, when you look back. Looking back on my own circumstances I can't believe how poor we were -- waitressing and work-study jobs -- and we were by no means at the bottom. She is entitled to reminisce, an even romanticize, this period of her life. It's interesting. common and humanizing. It takes a writer truly blinded by bias to fail to grasp that very human aspect of her speech. And of course, as other have well pointed out, Liz Warren has made a big deal out of her growing up in poverty, or rather "holding on to a place in the middle class," a story supported by no evidence and contradicted by everyone that knew her then, but continually repeated as gospel by the Globe. Truly third-rate journalism here.
If Mitt & Ann can just keep faking empathy for "you people", they've got it made!
Absolute GARBAGE from Joanna Weiss (again). Spewing liberal "hate" based on one's party affiliation. Scary that the boston globe even publishes such drivel. As stated by at least one other commenter, she would never write such "they are rich - and are out of touch" about the Kennedy's or Kerry's. Can't wait to see what she might write about Michelle Obama next week.