It may be a stupid way to choose a leader, but being totally out of touch with the commoners has never been a positive for a pres. candidate. Ya gotta pretend and act as if you do at least.

I daresay most voters hardly begrudge the rich their wealth. That said, wealthy people like the Bushes and the Romneys incur a lot of resentment because of their consistent failure to show any real sense of understanding and empathy for the concerns and struggles of the middle class and working poor. And when candidates like Mitt Romney deign to do so for strictly political purposes, it comes across as starkly patronizing, i.e., "Let me tell you a little about myself -- I'm also unemployed."

The Romneys' obvious and thinly-veiled sense of noblesse oblige and entitlement stands in marked contrast to the style of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, who like Mittens were both similarly born into wealth and privilege, yet managed over the course of their lives to develop and maintain a real personal connection with those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder (and often much to the consternation of FDR's aristocratic and overbearing mother, Sara Delano Roosevelt).

I grew up in a family that can be considered fairly wealthy and well off by most any standards, and I was often told by my grandparents that to whom much is given, much is to be expected. My grandmother in particular tried to live her life by example, and was always trying to help other people, particularly the less fortunate. After she retired from running her father's general contracting firm, she volunteered at the L.A. Chapter of the American Red Cross, serving on the board and as a community program director, which even included spending two days a week driving the elderly, invalids and the infirm to doctor's appointments, etc., across the length and breadth of greater metropolitan Los Angeles.

Excuse me for saying so, but I have a very hard time envisioning someone like Ann Romney ever doing the same. Now, to be fair, she's been dealing with multiple sclerosis for about 15 years(it's now in remission), but still, what does she and Mitt really do personally to make a practical difference in their community -- or should I say, communities? As far as I know, they've been quite generous with supporting their own Mormon Church, but that seems to be pretty much it as far as public obligations are concerned.

"In the ensuing years, [Ann Romney's] involvement in the sport moved well beyond her own riding. Mrs. Romney and three partners (including Ebeling's wife Amy) formed a corporation, Rob Rom Enterprises, Inc., that owns horses in various stages of competition. The Romneys' share of the financial burden is unclear, though there are hints in Mitt Romney's tax and disclosure documents that suggest it is significant. Romney's 2010 tax return indicates that Rob Rom Enterprises incurred more than $77,000 in losses that year. Gov. Romney's 2010 financial disclosure form lists the Romney stake in Rob Rom at between $250,000 and $500,000. The Romneys also reported loaning between $250,000 and $500,000 to The Acres, through The Acres' ownership group, ACR Enterprises." (Emphasis is mine.)

Couldn't "you people" (none / 0) (#32)
by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:53:57 PM EST

Be directed at the journalists who keep asking the question?

This bit of "creative" writing is ... I don't know what.  Embarrassing, I guess.

It may be that the primary accomplishment from the interview was to reinforce the elite out-of-touch image of Mitt while revealing the hatchet quality of Ann-toilette.

And, as for the Mitt:  Hiding behind the wife as she delivers the political message on The Won't-Release-His-Tax-Returns matter is not going to erase the wimp & weenie image that has been shadowing him.