NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > Entertainment blogs > Manhattan Diary > Ann Romney won't explain her views on marriage equality and birth control to 'you people' - VIDEO

Manhattan Diary by Cahir O'Doherty

Ann Romney won't explain her views on marriage equality and birth control to 'you people' - VIDEO

Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

77 Comments

RSS

Archives

Republican's Mitt Romney's wife Ann Romney

Ann Romney was asked her position on marriage equality and birth control on Friday but declined, multiple times, in the most dismissive tones, to give an answer.

Gay people and their legal rights aren't important to America, they not worth discussing apparently. Neither are any women's reproductive rights. You would think with the controversies surrounding Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's stance on abortion and an ongoing perception about the eroding of the rights of women that she might have engaged.

But no, Ann Romney knows what this election is about and she won't be distracted by 'hot-button' issues that don't interest her. Like most conservatives, she seems to believe that issues that don't personally affect her are non-issues.

Interviewed on Iowan television station KWQC on Friday Romney faced questions from anchor David Nelson.

David Nelson: 'Here in Iowa, as you know, same-sex marriage is legal. Do you believe a lesbian mother should be allowed to marry her partner?'

Ann Romney: 'You know, I'm not going to talk about the specific issues. I'm going to let my husband speak on issues. I'm here to really just talk about my husband and what kind of husband and father he is and, you know, those are hot-button issues that distract from what the real voting issue is going to be at this election. That, it's going to be about the economy and jobs…'

Nelson: 'Do you believe that employer-provided health insurance should be required to cover birth control?'

Ann Romney: 'Again, you're asking me questions that are not about what this election is going to be about. This election is going to be about the economy and jobs.'

David Nelson: 'Well, a Pew Research poll shows those issues are very important to women, ranking them either "important" or "very important.'

Click here for more news on Election2012

Ann Romney: 'You know, but I personally believe, and this is what I'm hearing from women all across the country that they are going to look for the guy that's going to pull them out of the weeds and get them job security and a brighter future for their children…'

David Nelson: 'You just told a reporter who was questioning you in Cleveland that you want women to have a secure and stable future. I asked you about marriage and whether lesbian mothers should be allowed to marry. Isn't marriage a part of creating a stable future?'

Ann Romney: 'You know, again, I'm going to talk to you about the economy and about job creation...'

It was so scripted and robotic that it was a masterclass in staying on message, even when it is blatantly obvious that you're dodging issues important to millions. But she came off as a high handed and patronizing, as though she were telling the press what the election was about and only taking questions that were convenient.

The sharp contrast between Romney's dodging and Michelle Obama's transparency on the issues stands in high relief. This election, there really is a choice between the candidates, their spouses, and what they stand (or won't stand) for.

E-mail

77 comments

Next Page 1 of 6 pages

peterson | Sep 13, 2012, 07:46 PM EDT

She sure is more of Woman than Mrs. Obama !! I think that you should find another job -- maybe Obama can use you--or is he already ?

Report abuse

Seanmor | Sep 13, 2012, 12:05 PM EDT

sgfoster1968: Your comment posted on 10 Sept. at 11:29 AM ought to be printed on the FRONT PAGE of all the leading Irish newspapers in the U.S. Your first sentence is uniquely accurate in stating that you are a 3rd generation [American] Irishman. Nearly everyone of Irish descent that I know in the NYC area never includes his/her immigrant ancestor in the generation count - as though their first U.S.-born ancestor were a spontaneous creation. The sociology college course I took (under he G.I. Bill) repeatedly counted the immigrant ancestor as the the first generation member. You correctly condemn the leftist elements of the American Irish "who are brainwashed by the Ted Kennedys" (and) "trample on every document that ... made America great...". As I read that statement I was reminded of the talk on the U.S. Constitution given by the guest speaker to members of my wife's D.A.R. chapter at our house on 8 Sept. Four the 39 signatories of this famous document (10%) were Irish-born. The year which you use in your 'name', 1968, was the first time I voted in a Presidental election, having become a citizen 3 years before that. My path to naturalzation included 4 years of HONORABLE service in the Marine Corps, of which I am extremely proud -having served as a citizen of the Irish nation (not merely of the 'independent' Irish state). My marriage to a New England Methodist who has famiy links in the North of Ireland didn't in any way diminish my strong attchment to the culture of Ireland, including the Gaeilge, several phrases of which my wife used daily. I'll end by saying 'go raibh míle maith agat' (a thousand thanks to you). God Bless America and God save Ireland.

Report abuse

BrianO | Sep 13, 2012, 02:35 AM EDT

So hollaback did you hear the open mic of the"journalist" trying to phrase their questions to attack Romney, it's a classic. Obama can do interviews with hip hop artists, while US soil is invaded and ambassadors assassinated and barry is cool, you have no soul.

Report abuse

BrianO | Sep 13, 2012, 02:30 AM EDT

When is free expression a crime, has the catholic church been ridiculed? EK you are a paid apologist so to debate is like talking to a wall, but 911 is a holy day to these attackers why was the embassy vunerable? why was the attack tolerated? why was the response passive. The world is changing our president is on our side or their side? I don't know, he is either a moron or a traitor, you pick.

Report abuse

EphraimKibbey | Sep 12, 2012, 01:52 PM EDT

@BrianO - How is sending the Marines to Tripoli this morning a cowardly act by President Obama? Perhaps the real cowards are the person (now in hiding) who posted this attack on Islam and the Florida "minister" who inspired him. Haven't Americans had enough of people who talk big and get others killed cleaning up their messes?

Report abuse

hollabackgurl | Sep 12, 2012, 12:03 PM EDT

I'm just quoting you BrianO. You claimed that the 'interviewer badgered Mrs Romney' when in fact he asked her good questions. She was in fact being asked to 'give her views on a subject and asked to clarify her position' but she declined. What you call 'a fishing exhibition to find some wedge issues to use against her husband' the rest of us call journalism. If she can't or won't answer questions that she shouldn't speak at all and her husband shouldn't run.

Report abuse

BrianO | Sep 12, 2012, 11:11 AM EDT

Holla thank you for speaking for me and telling me what I should be thinking, How hard are the questions asked of Michele? As hard as they should be I suppose because she is unimportant as is Romney's wife, politicaly. Let's try asking the coward and chief after his news conference today saying how great a guy the murdered lybian ambassador was. But I'm sure you are happy just one more step to the hamstringing of America, and the death of freedom. be careful though because these types don't discuss the tolerance of others, they kill non-conformants be it religion or sexual preference.

Report abuse

hollabackgurl | Sep 12, 2012, 08:38 AM EDT

BrianO is one of those modern conservatives who don't think political candidates or their supporters should take tough questions.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Sep 11, 2012, 02:53 PM EDT

When a posting appears with no name attached to it, the name of the NEXT poster becomes attached to the "no name" comment. I did not wish to have my name attached to the no-name posting, so now I have two screen names, eiriamach and "No Name." Niall O'Dowd, can you find a software techie to fix this problem?

Report abuse

No Name | Sep 11, 2012, 02:44 PM EDT

sgfoster1968, you did not sign in properly, but I assume you wrote the comment below. The US population is currently est. 314,352,807. Dividing $110 Billion (110,000,000,000) a year by the population (every man, woman, and child in the USA), does not yield an amount remotely like $310,000/year. We need a math check here!

Report abuse

No Name | Sep 11, 2012, 12:53 PM EDT

eiriamach- You are a bright one. My grandfather would be 112 yrs old if he was old enough to be 'sleeping on park benches and eating at soup kitchens'. 2% of the budget? Ok, that's fine. Still, where does all that money go? Do you really think that $310K a year for every man, woman, child is being spent wisely? That probably amounts to 600K per prospective student/yr. What a deal. For that, every degreed person out to have a PhD.

Report abuse

BrianO | Sep 11, 2012, 12:43 PM EDT

Sounds like the interviewer badgered Mrs Romney, it wasn't as if she was giving her views on a subject and asked to clarify her position, instead it was a fishing exhibition to find some wedge issues to use against her husband. Maybe they should have asked her if she has ever been proud to be an American, or what her views on limiting choices on food, or if she will be wearing armless dresses.

Report abuse

jerrydonovan | Sep 11, 2012, 11:30 AM EDT

Correction ,that should be,"run with the fox and hunt with the hounds at the same time".

Report abuse

jerrydonovan | Sep 11, 2012, 11:28 AM EDT

You want to discuss the economy!I wonder what she would say regarding Bain Capital sending jobs to CHINA AND ELSEWHERE.This was her husbands business.I believe that her function in the election process was to secure the support of women for her husband.If so then the questions on woman's rights are legitimate questions.If she does not wish to answer these type of questions then her solution is simple,don't go on the campaign stump.Ther is an old saying at home which goes"you can't run with the fox and hunt with the hares at the same time".You can either be prepared to answer questions or stay at home.Simple really.Of course with her husband's continually changing position on any given subject, I can understand her difficulty in giving a"correct answer of the day".

Report abuse

eiriamach | Sep 11, 2012, 11:02 AM EDT

sgfoster, I'll ignore your complaint about my "logic" because the facts I stated are verifiable and speak for themselves. But I will point out the faulty, insupportable generalization in your statement "*There will always be* people who will be without and point the finger, blaming the 'haves' for their own slothfulness." You should ask yourself what kind of evidence is required-- logically-- to show that human nature is so selfish and unchanging. Your inconsistency is even more troubling than that illogical claim. You write, "We, as a community, have a CHOICE to assist our fellow citizens, family, etc through churches, charities, community organizations." IF indeed the poor were incurably slothful as you say, WHY would it make sense "to assist" them with charity? It's not charitable to toss a dollar in their direction and tell them to subsist on it! But it makes sense to spend money to educate people if they CAN change, if they CAN LEARN to care, to contribute to our communities. If your human-nature claim were right, we'd abandon education as totally useless, a waste of time and money! You're looking for a rationalization for your "me-first" and "mine-only" politics, and you think you've found it in an over-simplified psychology that cannot withstand any scrutiny. Sadly, you mistake your own unthinking ideology for education! Your cannot answer McNamara31's questions with complaints about "slothfulness" (except for your own indifference). The unrestrained greed of the 'haves,' not govt assistance to the poor, crashed our economy and now threatens to destroy it.

Report abuse

Next Page 1 of 6 pages