Sarah Palin & Mitt Romney
Buzzing all over Twitter today is a bogus story that attempts to point out ‘Romney’s women problem’. The shameful piece hits the web in the midst of the anonymously fabricated Romney vs. Palin hubbub in an obvious attempt to create further dissension in the Republican party.
It’s painful to watch fellow GOP’ers nibble all over this party-dividing bait just months before the midterm election, when we should all be fighting for the same cause. One such example: our favorite nationally syndicated talk-show host, Tammy Bruce, has filled her Sunday’s twitterfeed with all sorts of sexist labels and links to chauvinistic videos, updating her blog with the same video. Then Miss Bruce, a long-time activist of the feminist movement, calls Romney to battle, “Hey Mittens, bring it on!” (We can only hope she is treated fairly should there ever be a battle.)
Does anyone else see this as despicable? Aren’t these the same identity-politics that have the civil rights people cry “racist” every time there is criticism of their own? Is this not the similar to what propelled Barrack Obama, an African-American community organizer/one-term senator into the most powerful position of the free world?
I was glad to see that Allahpundit, over at Hotair.com, offered a more sensical synopsis of the Salon article:
A lame piece but well-timed to capitalize on the Romney/Palin dust-up. Expect plenty of linkage tomorrow from Sarahcuda supporters on Twitter and elsewhere. The case for Mitt’s alleged sexism: He ran against three women in Massachusetts and played hardball each time. In the first instance, his team helped keep a woman rival off the primary ballot; in the next, they convinced prominent Republicans to call on the state’s first woman governor to step aside in favor or a stronger candidate (namely, Mitt); and in the third, he told his Democratic woman opponent that a charge she made against him was “unbecoming,” which is supposedly chauvinistic code for “un-ladylike.” Annnnd … that’s it. One questionable comment and two demonstrations of the sort of bareknuckle tactics everyone expects from Team Romney even against an all-male field. Read the whole thing and see for yourself. In fact, even author Steve Kornacki can’t quite bring himself to accuse Romney of sexism; the furthest he’s willing to go is to say that this doesn’t, er, “look good.”
From Salon.com: Three times in his relatively limited political career Romney has found a woman standing between him and his political goal. In each case, he ended up getting what he wanted — but it was always awkward, ugly and downright nasty, with cries of chauvinism and sexism along the way. The man just does not know how to look good while competing with a woman…
Yes, it’s true that Romney is three-for-three running against women. But it’s also true that he played with fire each time. He was able to get away with it in Massachusetts, for a variety of reasons, but the lights shine brighter — much brighter — on the national political stage. When a woman is in the race, Romney has a knack for making himself look bad — something all of America may soon discover.
Unless Kornacki’s calling on him to offer kid-gloves treatment to Palin while throwing roundhouses at Huckabee, Gingrich, etc. — which would itself be full of sexist nuance — I’m not sure what lesson Romney’s supposed to take from this. No questioning Palin’s qualifications for president, perhaps, lest it seem “demeaning,” even though a huge majority of the public questions them? What Salon’s after here, I assume, is sowing a little identity-politics discord in the enemy camp on the cheap, but even that’s a wasted opportunity given what they could have accomplished with this piece.
Of course, they’ve picked up the same piece at Conservatives4Palin.com and used it to continue their ‘tear-Mitt’s-head-off-and-spit-down-his-throat campaign, evidenced here, here, here, here, and here. And the irony of all this hoopla? …neither Mitt or Sarah have never uttered a word of disrespect personally to one another – for all we know, they maintain a friendly relationship.
I can only speak for myself and my fellow Mittheads here at Mitt Romney Central when I say that we hold Sarah Palin in a high regard and we acknowledge the huge effort she has made to fight for conservative principles. Heck, I voted for her just over 19 months ago, and would be obliged to do it again should she become our nominee. My only hope is that her supporters will quit jumping at every opportunity to pound a good man, Mitt Romney, into the ground (especially over fabricated, anonymous remarks by Romney “intimates”).
~Aaronius
Addendum by Nate: Aaron, glad you wrote this. I had been thinking about posting this same story but with a slightly different angle. Mine is short and sweet so I’ll just add it here.
The idea that Mitt Romney is sexist is laughable and completely without merit. Just a few points to show that he has strongly supported women for political office and has no reason to oppose Palin because she is a woman:
- While Romney was Governor of MA he had personally selected a woman, Kerry Healey, to be his Lieutenant Governor, and after his term he strongly supported and campaigned for her as his replacement.
- Romney was one of the first endorse Nikki Haley for Governor of SC, a whole 2 months before Palin did. Not only did he strongly endorse her, he contributed a boatload of money to her campaign, supported her with few campaign events, and even held a fundraiser for her in Boston, just recently. Romney said that he and his wife came to know Nikki Haley very well during his 2008 campaign, and felt strongly that she was the best for South Carolina. If Romney were a chauvinistic he could have easily selected anyone of the 3 men that were polling higher than her at the time.
- Governor Romney has been an adamant supporter of Meg Whitman in her bid to become Governor of California. He endorsed her extremely early and has done numerous events and fundraisers with her. Governor Romney recounts when he was interviewing Whitman for a job at Bain Capital long ago (even before she was CEO of eBay.com) that Meg was brilliant and had strong presence. He later learned that she had an amazing work ethic to boot.
- Perhaps the best evidence of Mitt’s respect for women is his long-standing love and adoration for his wife of 41 years. Mitt places her on a pedestal higher than any other. His commitment and attentiveness to her is admirable. I am a strong proponent of the idea that you can know how a man regards womanhood by how he treats his wife. When so many out there in politics, sports and entertainment choose to be selfish and break the vows they have made to their spouse, Mitt Romney stands as a shining example of devotion. He does not view women as subjects to conquer and fulfill sexual appetites. Respect, honor, and esteem; that is the regard that Romney has for women.
I thought this article was going to be about how popular Romney is with women. Those are probably Dems pretending to be Republicans attacking him, again. They know Palin is not a favorite with voters who cross over, but he is. They probably figure if it doesn’t work, it will just make Palin supporters look bad. Whoever is doing it, it’s dirty politics. And I never hid behind my gender (or race) in a debate or to escape accountability, how lame is that? Tammy Bruce is in this business to make money, people have to stay in the limelight to keep bringing in listeners and the cash. That’s the name of that game.
And I’ve been watching Romney for years, he’s a scholar and a gentleman. A good guy, too.
“fabricated Romney vs. Palin hubbub”
Since Romney certainly treated the incidents involving his advisers as real on Twitter it obviously isn’t “fabricated”. The response, if it were untrue, is to call it as a lie without hestitation.
I don’t why Romney refuses to fire the advisers responsible for this or why he refuses to make a quick personal phone call to Palin to offer an apology but he should know that it’s not sitting well with Republican women.. Even among those who might have otherwise tended to support him.
It’s not wrong for him to go after the opposition, but our opposition is Obama and the Democrats during a such a very crucial election time and not other Republicans.
Hi, Karen. Thanks for your comment. Here is Romney’s tweet in response to Mark Halperin’s Time article: “TIME says unnamed advisors disparaged @SarahPalinUSA. Anonymous numbskulls. She’s proven her smarts; they’ve disproven theirs.”
The unnamed advisors are ANONYMOUS. That means they are unknown to you, to me, to Mitt, and to anyone else except author Mark Halperin and maybe anyone who assisted him in writing his HIT-piece. Or, these ‘supposed’ advisers could be entirely fabricated. So, your statement that “It’s not wrong for him to go after the opposition…” shows you misread his tweet. Mitt Romney DID NOT go after opposition – namely Sarah Palin. And, in his tweet, he appropriately calls out the ‘anons’ and also pays her a high compliment. Furthermore, Romney has CONSISTENTLY been gracious and has spoken well of Sarah Palin. No other Republican candidate running for president last time campaigned harder for McCain and Palin than Mitt Romney. Think about it. His record – the FACTS – demonstrate his regard for her and for women in general.
This hoopla caused by Halperin – who is a liberal MSNBC Senior Political Analyst – needs to be CUT OFF. Halperin also wrote some highly uncomplimentary things about Palin in his best-seller book entitled Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, Palin and McCain, and the Race of a Lifetime and he swears it’s the whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth. Let’s not let Halperin win. HE is the one we should go after, as well Obama and his cronies.
Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s spokesman, emphatically stated that the comments in the Time.com article were not authorized, approved, or encouraged by Romney: “These anonymous voices don’t speak for Governor Romney,” Fehrnstrom said in an email (to the Daily Caller).“The truth is Governor Romney has a small circle of people who advise him, and they all know the high regard that he has for Sarah Palin, and he has expressed that view in numerous interviews over the years.”
Romney IS devoted to helping conservatives win this fall. So are we. Glad to hear you are, too. Please pass the truth on to your contacts. Together, we must take back our country.
Thanks for you reply, Jade, I really appreciate your time. I understand what you’re saying, but there are a few points I find a bit puzzling.
“The unnamed advisors are ANONYMOUS. That means they are unknown to you, to me, to Mitt, and to anyone else except author Mark Halperin and maybe anyone who assisted him in writing his HIT-piece.”
At the least that doesn’t speak well in the area of being in control of a campaign. For good and for ill the top person is responsible for the actions of those beneath him (or her). To me this would be a “firing offense” where the culprits from the “small circle” are ordered to come forth, tender the resignations and go on their way. Now, if they refuse to come forth they can’t be very trustworthy or decent people. Certainly more interested in just keeping a job than indoing the right thing. And as Mitt has said, they are “numbskulls”. Now maybe you can see the logical problem that to me seem obvious: it would be difficult to support _any_ candidate who carries an advisory staff of dishonest “numskulls”. I don’t mean that purely in a political terms – who would want to eat at a restaurant where the cooks and wait staff are filthy and the boss verbally calls the workers idiots? See my point.
“Or, these ’supposed’ advisers could be entirely fabricated.”
As a mentioned, if untrue, it would have been easily batted down right off the bat.
“Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s spokesman, emphatically stated that the comments in the Time.com article were not authorized, approved, or encouraged by Romney”
I’m thinking Mitt should have been out in front of this with a clear statement and clear apology upfront. That would have been an impressive, take responsibility-take charge moment. I think most people aren’t as impressed by spokesmen.
I’ve worked on campaigns both as a volunteer and paid staff. One problem with every campaign is that it tends to operate in a bubble of it’s own creation and doesn’t “think outside the bubble”. They go by SOP and biz as usual, but things are not as standard or usual as they used to be. For instance, when something like this happens the normal reaction is damage control and having the candidate keep a low profile. But this could have been a very clear, defining moment for Mitt. A moment to, as Obama might say, “kick a$$” and to express sincere apology, all without losing face. Now, instead the meme people are whispering and speaking of openly is Romney’s “women problem”. And memes – true or false – have a long, long shelf life. It’s all too bad, since to my thinking this was a missed “opportunity in disguise” for Mitt.
Karen, thanks for your volunteer and paid campaign work. My campaign work has been in the volunteer dept. A few more thoughts…
You: “At the least that doesn’t speak well in the area of being in control of a campaign.”
Mitt isn’t in a campaign. He’s devoted entirely to taking back congressional seats this fall. And, working his tail off, I might add.
You: “To me this would be a “firing offense” where the culprits from the “small circle” are ordered to come forth, tender the resignations and go on their way. Now, if they refuse to come forth they can’t be very trustworthy or decent people. Certainly more interested in just keeping a job than indoing the right thing. And as Mitt has said, they are “numbskulls”. Now maybe you can see the logical problem that to me seem obvious: it would be difficult to support _any_ candidate who carries an advisory staff of dishonest “numskulls”. I don’t mean that purely in a political terms – who would want to eat at a restaurant where the cooks and wait staff are filthy and the boss verbally calls the workers idiots? See my point.”
The ‘culprits’ AREN’T from Romney’s small circle. To find out who they are – IF they exist – you’d have to wrest the information from Mark Halerpin, just like you’d have to wrest the information from him on his sources for his best-seller book dissing Sarah Palin.
You: “For instance, when something like this happens the normal reaction is damage control and having the candidate keep a low profile. But this could have been a very clear, defining moment for Mitt. A moment to, as Obama might say, “kick a$$” and to express sincere apology, all without losing face. Now, instead the meme people are whispering and speaking of openly is Romney’s ‘women problem’.”
Romney, nor his advisers, were NOT involved in anyway. So, in order to satisfy you, he should apologize for some anonymous buttheads who ‘supposedly’ spoke to well-known liberal Mark Halperin? What trusted, credible conservative spokesmen would speak to Halperin and utter words they know could potentially hurt their hoped-for candidate, undermine the work he’s done to help conservatives, disrupt the Republican party going into fall elections, and cast aspersions on someone Romney respects? They aren’t Romney advisers. Romney DID, as you say, effectively ‘bat down’ the anons and complimented Palin as well. ‘Meme people’ are often chatterers within a ‘culture of same opinions’ who frequently resist hearing, listening, or speaking the truth.
As I said earlier, Halperin, with his newly acquired position at MSNBC, is out to poke fingers in the eyes of conservatives, get them crying (and memes were quick to sob), and cause them to take their watering eyes off the ‘fall election ball’.
Romney hasn’t done anything to apologize for. Romney esteems women. So, dry your eyes, memes. Here’s a hanky to help you: Get to work to defeat the Mark Halperins of the world and the Obama-mangling-machine. If you fail, you’ll really have something to boo-hoo about.
Karen you are giving too much credit to the numbskulls. They likely have no connection with the Romney organization, can’t call it a campaign because its not. They cannot be fired if they are not on the payroll or part of unpaid staff. They could just be hangers-on or former staffers or uninformed supporters. And as they are anonymous, only Halperin knows if or whether there is any official connection to the F&SAmericaPAC. But to expect Romney to control those he has no authority over is a bit ridiculous. I don’t know anyone who can do that.
Should Sarah apologize for every snarky attack made by her supporters?
There would be no end to the apologizing because of those who love to get their digs in on rivals. You cannot control the unaffiliated and to expect the chief to run around making up for their insults is not reality. Nor would we want to give that much credit to the numbskulls. By doing that you imply that their is a connection and I don’t believe there is. What you do control is your official message, through authorized spokespersons and organization appointees.
I don’t believe the numbskulls were anything but. And a tweet like Mitt’s is hardly keeping a low profile. How often has he ever put a message like that out there. Never!
So if these numbskulls were actually associated with his organization, then yes, you might expect “a clear statement and a clear apology”. ( Although I personally thought his tweet was clear and unmistakable. ) Your expectations are misplaced. Romney is a man of integrity and kind as well. He doesn’t appreciate the words that were spoken. But they were anonymous, and the only consequences the numbskulls have had is to see Romney criticized by you and others for the actions of numbskulls. That is hardly fair, but politics never is.
I am so tired of all the things that are popping up again against Mitt. I wish the media would just stop with the lies. I know Mitt would not say an unkind word about Sarah Palin,or any one else, they are friends and I know she does not believe the things the media says. Just try being kind for once. Remember Bambi? (If you can’t say something nice don’t say nothing at all.) I think most of the media should go back to grade school.
For Verla… :)
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGt9jAkWie4
Must be a slow news cycle for this kind of second-rate fabrication to be acting rearing its head. Romney does not have a ‘woman problem’.
I think it’s bull, sorry.