August 28, 2012, - 1:15 pm

Ann Romney: “That’s Why We’re Running.” Um, Who’s “We”? Same Question to Michelle Obama

By Debbie Schlussel

Tonight, Ann Romney gives her speech at the Republican National Convention. And, on Sunday, in a “FOX News Sunday” interview with Chris Wallace, she repeatedly talked about “we” in an annoying way, as in “we’re running,” and “that’s why we’re running,” and “we’ve been running.” Last time I checked, the name Ann Romney wasn’t on my ballot in the Michigan Primary. If she says, “We’re running,” again in her speech tonight, I think I’ll hurl. We know, for instance, that Michelle Obama is the man in that relationship and she tells the Prez what to do. But she’s smart enough not to brag about it.

Um, here’s a scoop for Mrs. Romney–and it’s the same newsflash for Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Hussein Obama Idi Amin Dada: YOU are NOT running. You are not going to be President. You were never on my ballot, and you probably never will be. I didn’t see Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name (when she was still just Hillary Angry-Chick Clinton, spouse of a cheating candidate and, later, President) on the ballot when Bill Clinton ran for President. I didn’t vote for her (or him, for that matter). And I’m tired of this mindless elevation of First Ladies and uber-ambitious First Lady wannabes to candidates. With Ann Romney doing so, herself, it’s stepped up a notch. Bill Clinton did his annoying “two for one” crap with Hillary. Hillary got slapped down by mainstream Americans for thinking she was elected to Healthcare Czar and her secretive ClintonCare meetings were mocked and ridiculed. You’d think First Ladies would have learned. But nope, Michelle Obama is all over TV as America’s unwanted personal nurtritionist and fridge police, and now Ann Romney does this “we’re running” baloney.

Enough. You aren’t on the ballot. Stop pretending you are. Stay out of my kitchen and my exercise routine, Michelle Obama. And stick to public causes like cancer cures and feeding America’s hungry, which your husband helped create more of.


I would say that Laura Bush didn’t insert herself as much as the others, but I would be wrong. As I’ve repeatedly noted on this site, this jerk-ette from Texas, sported a Muslim hijab and repeatedly smiled for cameras next to full-ninja endowed Muslims in a stark pander to extremism, while she was in the Muslim Arab Gulf States, promoting breast cancer screenings. How Long ’til Ann Romney or Michelle Obama follows suit? So, there goes the cancer cause.

Whatever happened to the good old days, when First Ladies picked out White House china patterns and got attacked for that? Say what you will about Nancy Reagan and her astrologers, at least she didn’t tell me how to eat, which doctor to go to, or tell me, “we’re running.” Yes, she had a lot of say into what Ronald Reagan did, but she was smart enough not to say so publicly or give us this “We’re running” stuff.

Ann Romney, you are not running. Your husband is. Just because Michelle Obama thinks she’s President, doesn’t mean you should get that silly thought into your head, too.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , ,

33 Responses

It would seem that Ann Romney’s “running” has more to do with seeking to attract the woman’s vote than anything else – but then, it only seems that way.

ConcernedPatriot on August 28, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    I would agree with Concerned Patriot that this seems to have “more to do with seeking to attract the woman’s vote than anything else.” In fact, I doubt that Ann Romney came up with the “we” expression all on her own.

    Remember that presidential elections are not all that different from marketing products, and the Republicans are marketing the Romney brand, just like the Democrats are marketing the Obama brand. Very likely, the marketing consultants for Romney–in addition to covering such details as the look of Ann’s hair, clothing, accessories, makeup, etc.–are covering all her talking points.

    During her media interview training, the use of “we” was likely added to her talking points as a way (at least in the minds of Romney’s marketing consultants) to help win women over to the Romney brand. Their thinking probably was that most people would not be put off by the use of “we” because they would tend to think of it in terms of the “family” as “we,” and they believe that Ann is sufficiently “likeable” to women that they will relate to her, and thus “buy” the Romney brand. I realize that it may sound dumb that women would vote for Mitt Romney because they like his wife and feel comfortable with her, but I don’t think the consultant are wrong in their reasoning. Of course, for independent women who are not easily manipulated, like Debbie, the strategy can backfire a bit, but on balance they believe that they may be able to bring more women into their fold.

    This discussion reminds me of something amusing I read about regarding the John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon election in 1960. According to accounts, although JFK was already very popular with women, his wife, Jackie, was even more popular. After he became president, Jackie’s popularity continued to soar. In response to this, after an official tour, JFK quipped, “I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, and I have enjoyed it.”

    Ralph Adamo on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Are you serious? This is something you have an issue with?

Look, if you were married, you would know, that married couples that love and respect each other, often refer to themselves as “we”. Duh.

FrenchKiss on August 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    FK,

    Uh, no. Actually, my husband speaks for himself.

    I wouldn’t have it any other way. And, vice versa.

    As Goes... on August 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Uh, yeah. I said loving and respectful. Thanks for making my point.

      FrenchKiss on August 28, 2012 at 3:40 pm

FrenchKiss, doesn’t matter – first spouses are not elected officials, and have no business describing that they are.

Infidel on August 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    If you think spouses have no part of a President’s decision process then you are deluded.

    FrenchKiss on August 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Deb – you posted: ” We know, for instance, that Michelle Obama is the man in that relationship and she tells the Prez what to do. But she’s smart enough not to brag about it.”

…I think this is incorrect.

Val-erie Jarrett, Chitown Slumlord, ‘is the man in that relationship’….

Nick Fury on August 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm

A slight error. It’s Valerie Jarrett who (likely, more than Michelle) tells Obama what to do.

Not Ovenready on August 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm

Good bust, Deb!

What a yutz!

As Goes... on August 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm

I agree with FrenchKiss. Married couples DO refer to themselves as “we.” My husband recently won his election. “We” went through several years of torture working on his campaign. I did all his graphics work and his website, as well as handled all the financial business. He worked like crazy and deserves the win. But even he refers to us as “we” when talking about the campaign. He knows how much I put into it and it’s his way of recognizing that. I don’t think he would mind if I said “we” were running. And I don’t believe for a minute that Ann Romney thinks she is describing herself as an elected official just because she says “we.”

Lilida on August 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Debbie isn’t a married woman and I’m not a married man but I would have say in an informal sense, I see nothing wrong with a married couple describing themselves as “we” – marriage does bring a change in life and like the Bible says, two separate persons metaphorically join and become one being. I do agree with her though that pushing couplehood beyond the bounds of propriety, to imply you’re getting to make public decisions voters didn’t elect you to make is a strict no-no.

    Advice and counsel to one’s husband is appropriate. Wearing the pants in the family isn’t. I think its the latter that got Debbie ticked off and as that has evolved in America its not been in a good way for the role of men and the health of the family as an institution itself. Mrs. Romney might want to keep that in mind when she addresses the Republican National Convention tonight.

    NormanF on August 28, 2012 at 2:41 pm

      Norman, the main point would be why she is addressing the convention at all? She is not a Vice President or holder of an office at the state or federal level. Ann Romney is not even a party bureaucrat. I hated it when John McCain had his whole family out doing speeches for him, including his Art History daughter who had the intelligence of a warm glass of water. I find this family affair nonsense to be a silly distraction at best, and down right maudlin at worst.

      Worry01 on August 29, 2012 at 4:22 am

        Worry,

        The practice began in 1972 with President Nixon’s wife Pat, who introduced him to the country.

        There is considerable truth in the adage that besides yourself, the person who knows you best and your children best can most effectively reveal your character and life history to others.

        Its very effective, which is why both parties have made ample use of it to the present day. People just like to see the human side of public figures and its like having a relation with your own family, which is the point.

        You want people to accept you as a natural extension of them and that is human nature.

        NormanF on August 30, 2012 at 2:15 am

Times have changed and wives have a lot more power than they used to have. Its the rare man who doesn’t follow his wife’s advice.

That said, when it comes to the Presidency, there can only be ONE person is charge. The guy we elect to serve in that office. We don’t elect his spouse to be Co-President!

If Ann Romney wants to be President she should run for the office herself.

And here’s another good tip: we’re not and have never been a monarchy and the royal “we” is out of place in this country and for a good reason.

NormanF on August 28, 2012 at 2:32 pm

When my wife was pregnant, I would often say (20+ years ago) “we are pregnant” simply because it conveyed my commitment to support her. I suspect it has more to do with a recognition that she is supporting her husband in much the same way I was supporting my wife.

bryane on August 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm

To see the absurdity of Ann Romney using ‘we’ just look at men in other roles in society. Do sports athletes (at least the small number of those that are married) say ‘we’ in talking to sportscasters, referring routinely to the partnership with their wife? Do corporate execs (at least in their role as execs, not afterwards when they are heading foundations) say ‘we’? Of course not. It is pandering, suggests ego problems on the part of the women, and is reflective of the idiocy of the female electorate and the vacuousness of any issues in the campaigns. But the soap operization of the presidential campaign is now complete.

Little Al on August 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm

But at least you have a better picture of Romney than those the Wall Street Journal has been using for the last several months.

Little Al on August 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm

And yet you are still “voting” for Ann Romney.

Someone explain that one to me.

Apparently our fierce new “anything to win” ethic dictates that we embrace liberals like Romney, but dump good ones like Akin when *they* commit a gaffe.

I swear, I would vote for Weasel Bill over either of these two nominees. Y’know, my father was SHOT in Vietnam in 1968 – the worst year of the conflict and one of America’s darkest hours. It was right about that time that Romney was living in a mansion in France. As far as I’m concerned, that will ALWAYS be his home of record.

I guess everyone serves the country in their own special way. Romney serves his by socializing his state’s healthcare industry and trying to force-cram enough Mexicans into America to make it explode.

QUIT MITT 2012!

Statusmonkey on August 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Good point Debbie. It is fashionable to talk in the plural when you are married, as if you were connected at the hip.
We have become so saturated with this language that I hardly
notice it anymore. But you have rightly pointed out this affectation that has creeped into our language. Similar to the King’s using we to mean god and myself.

Tim on August 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

Maybe she can debate Sandra Fluke.

Little Al on August 28, 2012 at 3:15 pm

GOod point Debbie, now my question is, what if it were the other way around, that Ms. Romney were running for president or any higher office, will her husband Mitt do what she’s doing by somewhat stealing the spot-light?

As Michael Savage said last night and previous weeks and months, Mitt Romney has to take the gloves off and go on the attack towards Obama, because right now, Romney is playing defense and running a very mediocre campaign. My assumption is that Romney is being dedicated a little too much to the bible by turning the other cheek way too frequently (since I bought that up, reminds me folks from the “RoP” who follows all of the teachings and texts written in the koran) and being too much of a nice guy. I’m no fan of Chris Christie and I know you have your issues with Christie DS (so do I, I to think Chris Christie is a prick and a fraud), but atleast the guy shows leadership and in your face mentality without being a wingnut!

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on August 28, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    @Sean R,

    Romney is “turning the other cheek” because of the BIBLE? You have GOT to be kidding.

    Perhaps you’re right – but if so, the Bible must be awfully particular about WHICH opponents good Christians can attack. Because when his opponents were Santorum/Gingrich/Cain/Bachmann, Romney was a roaring lion of fury.

    If you could X-ray our dapper little Rominee, I think you would find that every last crevice of that weasel is loaded with oily slime and venom.

    It’s anybody’s guess why he now refuses to deploy the stuff against Obama. But only a fool could observe this behavior and NOT entertain doubts about Romney’s motives.

    Dare to dream: can you even FATHOM how much excitement and energy would be generated if the convention unexpectedly dumped Romney and gave the romination to Paul Ryan instead? I think you would see Obama’s little sand castle swept away by a violent tidal wave of reenergized voters. Not that I’m holding my breath or anything.

    Statusmonkey on August 28, 2012 at 6:23 pm

For better or worse, the wives of politicians play a very public and important role. I see nothing wrong with saying “we”. Debbie, Debbie,Debbie, …..lighten up!

Laurie J on August 28, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Debbie,

When it comes to running for president,for the most part it is “we”.

Ann Romney,as well as most other spouses of candidates not only make great personal sacrifices,they cris-cross the US going to campaign rallies and bust their butts to help their spouses get elected.

They’ve certainly earned the right to say “we”

Lastly,I think Obama stinks as president,but “WE” don’t know that Michelle is the “man” in that relationship. That’s your own personal bias.

Scott on August 28, 2012 at 11:11 pm

I know that spouses might use ‘we’ in refering to themselves in their family/personal contexts. But it’s completely out of place in a work environment, particularly when both of them don’t work on the same thing.

FrenchKiss, I know that spouses might have an influence on presidentns, governors and so on, but that’s inappropriate. Best example is Laura Bush asking ‘Bushie’ to tone down his language after he talked about getting Osama ‘dead or alive’. I’d much rather that spouses not interfere in their spouses’ work. In other professions too, you usually have spouses working in different places & different jobs – he may be a showroom manager @ Subaru, and she may be a part of Intel’s finance department. So for either of them to say ‘we’ while referring to their work sounds inane, as Little Al pointed out above.

Same applies here. First spouses ain’t elected, and if someone like Laura Bush actually kept her husband from hunting down Osama, that’s the last thing we need in the White House. In such a case, only single men or single women should be eligible. Someone like Debbie.

Infidel on August 28, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Infidel,

    It depends on the kind of advice. Advice to make a better decision on behalf of others is appropriate. Advice for one’s own personal gain isn’t acceptable in public office.

    We all rely on loved ones to see things we can’t see ourselves and such a perspective is always welcome. Having a spouse make the decisions would out of place.

    So there are things a spouse can do with a mate who is a public official and things they can’t do. We don’t have co-Presidents or co-Governors in this country and the role of First Lady is always a ceremonial one.

    I imagine if a spouse was unhappy with their mate’s decisions, the appropriate thing to do as I pointed out earlier is for them to run for public office themselves.

    NormanF on August 30, 2012 at 2:24 am

Ann Romney is not running for anything. As First Lady, she would have the ability to order some servants around, but that is about it. Why does she need to give us a speech at the Republican National Convention?

Worry01 on August 29, 2012 at 4:14 am

Did anyone notice how Ann Romney tried to make is sound like she came from humble beginnings by saying she came from a small Michigan town where her dad became mayor. The town was Bloomfield Hills. Small yes. Humble no!!

Just Me on August 29, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Releax Deb…

GV on September 1, 2012 at 1:36 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field