Ann Romney on “47 percent”: Writing people off? Not even a little bit
posted at 12:01 pm on September 19, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
Ann Romney appeared for an interview on a Fox affiliate last night, and when asked specifically about the hullabaloo over Mitt Romney’s ’47 percent’ comments and whether or not, as Team Obama insists, Romney was showing “disdain” for almost half of America, I gotta’ say — I think she handled it well. She’s hitting a lot of the right notes here, via BuzzFeed:
“…He is talking about what’s happening in America right now and how more and more people are falling into poverty, in particular, women are falling into poverty. There is a concern on his part, which is why he’s running, is that he wants to make sure to bring better economic opportunities for everyone. …If you really do listen to everything that he does say, he’s talking about what we’re facing in America right now. We’re facing some really difficult situations, and if we don’t take corrective measures soon, more and more people will become dependent on government and that is not what he wants. …What [Mitt learned from his success in business]… he understands the economy, he understands job creation, he understands what’s missing in this economy right now… He honestly believes he can help.”
Again — of course no candidate is going to spend the presidential election cycle trying to move people out of their opponent’s base; they’re going to be trying to convince the swingers. I think Mrs. Romney did a fine job highlighting the point that Mitt isn’t trying to eliminate these programs for people who needs them; he wants to create a robust, prosperous economy in which people neither need nor want them, because the opportunities for success are much more fruitful. It really is that simple. She is indeed a soft and empathetic foil to the scheming, greedy corporatist that Team Obama is trying to illustrate to the general public, and presents an approachable way to bring attention to Mitt’s lifelong track record of neighborly and charitable deeds — more, please!