Mrs. Romney Shines

Wow! Ann Romney on The View was the epitome of intelligent, elegant, class. She reminded me of Laura Bush. Woopie Goldberg, again woefully uninformed, went for the gotha question based on erroneous information about Mormons and Ann Romney handled the question with restraint, class and firmness.

Mrs. Romney would not be dragged into the policy weeds. She spoke to her husband’s heart, as the person who knows him best. Woopie wants to know how Mrs. Romney will handle greeting dead soldiers when her own sons did not engage in military service. Wants to know how she’ll answer the mothers of those dead sons. Whew, Woopie, apparently, assumes that for a grieving mother, another mother’s sons is uppermost in their minds. I seriously doubt that is what is on a grieving mother’s mind. The question, as it frequently does, clarifies the questioner more so than the person on the receiving end of the question. If someone is out of touch here it is not Mrs. Romney.

Oh yea, Ann Romney is going to be a factor in the last three weeks of the campaign. If you’re not a highly ideological woman and don’t think she’s a class act please respond to this post and explain it to me because I don’t see anything other than class. If you don’t think she’ll impact the woman’s vote, I’m all ears.

  • Bill Hedges

    I won’t watch THE VIEW anymore but did watch Woopie Goldberg with our next First Lady:

    Video

    http://current.com/community/93932953_whoopi-goldbergs-uncomfortable-question-to-ann-romney-video.htm

  • Bill Hedges

    “’View’ takes religion, military, abortion shots at Ann Romney after playing ‘romantic’ softball with Obamas”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/18/ann-romney-defends-husband-record-on-view-following-obama-appearance-last-month/#ixzz29lK8UJud

  • sangamonese

    as the mother of a Marine who served in Afghanistan during the ’09 “push” and was lucky to have him come home, I was insulted by Mrs. Romney’s response. To think that a “mission” for the Mormon church could be compared to combat service is just ludicrous.

    and her name is spelled Whoopie.. who may have been misinformed about whether or not Mormons serve in the Armed Forces; and since Mormons “can” serve, what happened to Mitt and all 5 of their sons?

  • Landreaux

    Sangamonese,

    I am sincerely happy that your son returned home and am most appreciative of his service. I take your point, and I agree that a religious mission is not the same as Military service. But it does not excuse what Ms. Goldberg attempted to do. That was, in my opinion, insulting as well. I know how her name is spelled, my spelling was purposeful.

  • Susie G

    How have we become a country that attempts to vilify a woman who has survived breast cancer, has a debilitating disease MS, has raised 5 sons , and is still married after 40 +years? Whoopie Goldberg, you should be ashamed no matter the politics!

  • Pachydiplax

    I saw Ann on The View and I saw a self-serving, out of touch, totally unaware, entitled snob. The entire Romney family will best serve this country by quietly fading away. Perhaps they could move off shore with their money and all the jobs Bane Bain outsourced to other countries.

  • dawna107

    It strikes me as odd/ludicrous that people put Mitt Romney down for not serving in the Military when Obama himself has never served in the military. you can’t have it both ways. Ann Romney did a wonderful job putting Whoopie Goldberg in her place. Way to go Ann. You have my utmost respect and will make a fine First Lady.

  • Sojourner

    Whoopie, Remember this is a free country. There was not a draft. What have you done in serving your country in the military, it is open to women also. What do you say to those mothers. Those mothers would probably be insulted by anything you have to say. Mitt has already served his country in ways you are incapable of. His sons may have too. I would not doubt that they already have. You are an uneducated smug, snob, that loves to hear herself talk, while others are actually doing something.

  • Mike

    Landreaux:

    I’m no fan of Whoopie Goldberg. She’s generally ill informed, as are the rest of the women on that show. I don’t watch it because it’s usually impossible to learn anything from it. But in the enterest of civilized debate, don’t you think there’s more than enough name-calling on this site?

  • Mike,

    Name calling goes on all over, including the Presidential campaign. I have no intention of policing reasonable comments. I do not approve comments that are profane, misoginstic or racist, et al. There are readers who have access to comments absent review. I got drawn into internecine comments once, not going there again.

    I embrace civilized debate and also understand emotions run stong on occasion. I don’t think there is anything over the line here.

    I’ve been called worse.

    I think the readers here are sophisticated enough to sort it out.

    To all, thank you for caring enough, one way or another, to take advantage of an opportunity to have a voice.

    Landreaux

  • Bill Hedges

    “Mike Oct 19th, 2012 at 11:57 pm”

    1. “I’ve wasted enough time on this crackpot nonsense. Besides, trying to decipher your sentence fragments gives me a headache. You can now proudly announce that you’ve driven another ‘liberal’ from the field of battle with you impeccable logic and unsurpassed knowledge of economics”

    2. Addressing Mike misinformation or out and out L I E:

    “Mike Oct 19th, 2012 at 4:47 pm” in “47 %” article

    A. “When researching the matter in question, I turned first to conservative, supply-side economists. I found that none of them supported the contention that tax cuts pay for themselves. In fact, quite the opposite. Go to youtube and punch in ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’. You will easily find Bruce Bartlett of the Reagan administration explaining why the contention is nonsense. Likewise with Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Paulson and numerous others. Greg Mankiw, George Bush’s apointee to the chairmanship of his Council of Economic Advisors said that people who contend that tax cuts pay for themselves are “cranks and charlatans”

    The “youtube” links gave NEXT TO NO DATA PROOF.

    Two paragraphs below this Mike said:

    B. Now MIKE sees (forget point A.) “how tax cuts at the high end increase revenue”((( Which is it Mick ??? )))

    “This process has not been an entire waste of time for me. I now understand how tax cuts at the high end increase revenue by drawing assets out of tax shelters provided to the wealthy by our bribed national legislature”

    C. In between these two paragraphs Mike wrote. Remember Mick spoke of Mellon against “loopholes”. Problem being Mellon AGREED WITH ME on topic of our discussion (TAXES):

    Mike wrote “I am not enterested in any more links to sites that ‘prove’ that tax cuts pay for themselves by ignoring inflation, the normal increase of GDP, and the massive concentration of wealth at the top over the last 30 years. I’ve wasted enough time on that nonsense.”

    1. The Heritage Foundation link Mike doesn’t want to hear about because he “wasted enough time on that nonsense.” MIKE HAD YOU OPENED UP THIS LINK AND READ YOU WOULD KNOW Heritage Foundation link discussed the things you say they did not:

    a. “Spurred in part by lower tax rates, the economy expanded dramatically. In real terms, the economy grew 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, and annual economic growth averaged more than 6 percent”

    b. “Notwithstanding (or perhaps because of) the dramatic reduction in tax rates, personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, rising from $719 million in 1921 to $1,160 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of no inflation).4 *****(((((((((( NO INFLATION ))))))))))*****

    c. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich rose dramatically. As seen in Chart 5, taxes paid by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent of the total tax burden in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

    d. This surge in revenue was no surprise to Mellon:

    The History of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.5” (this 5 gives source for this information).

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax

    I quote normally from links. Can not quote ENTIRE ARTICLE.

    Mike is trying to give GOOD CAUSE for DISMISSING every single data link of mine. WHILE Mike’s YOUTUBE WITH LITTLE OR NO DATA is as good as gold…

  • Bill Hedges

    Sorry

    Left out some “” from C. to link…

  • Bill Hedges

    NOTE”

    “The share of the tax burden borne by the rich rose dramatically” doesn’t change much because of inflation, GNP, etc. which is what Mike used to discredit Heritage GOVERVERNMENT NUMBERS.

    Another note RARE for Mike to give number proof…

  • Mike

    Landreaux:

    Fair enough. You’re the boss. I guess I’m just old and conservative. I just read a post from my granddaughter’s fiance, a highly educated young professional, referring to Sarah Palin as a bitch. It disturbs me because I was raised to believe in good manners and polite conversation. I don’t think your writing ‘Woopie’ was really any big deal compared to some of the rudeness I see.

  • Landreaux

    Mike,

    Trust me, I’m not the boss. Just trying to keep up.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    I threw in my previous comment to give JUST A TASTE of your “rudeness”, many times in the form of sarcastic remarks (substitution for proof). Check the first paragraph. Just a appetizer not the main meal. Seems you have blocked your participation OUT OF YOUR MEMORY. You’re not the dog barking warning but part of the “rudeness”.

    YOU could have given the NUMBERS, you promised & I doubted you would provide, to prove your statement about Bush than worry about “rudeness” & before that “grammar”.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    See you put “name-calling” back into your last comment vocabulary & made it stylist & IN THING TO DO. You may have expanded use of “name-calling” though I thought you were against.

    Must of misunderstood !!!