Hail the Conquering Romney, The “Champion of the Proletariat”

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: “It was also shamelessly maudlin, mendacious in the extreme, and otherwise completely of a piece with the entire campaign that has been waged by the man who delivered it in triumph last night”, Charles P. Pierce, Game Over: Mitt Romney's Big Night, Esquire magazine, April 25, 2012.

On April 24, 2012, Willard Mitt Romney (“Rmoney”) gave a sort of pre-ordination speech that addressed his ascendancy to the GOP’s 2012 candidate for the office of U.S. president. Never mind Newt Gingrich, though now re-assessing his campaign, and Ron Paul, who is still challenging his ascendancy, Rmoney took the crown and set it upon his head, as in the coronation of a king.

For this reason, and countless others, the 2012 GOP primary race will go down in history as the worst kind of political circus, the worst variety of forked tongues, the most bloodletting of political campaigns, and a distinguishable extremism that will haunt the GOP for years to come. In other words, when it comes time to vote in November, one would certainly have to share some of their extremisms or extreme positions in order to the punch the GOP ticket for POTUS.

When reading several articles covering Romney’s speech, one article stood out from many critiques of his performance. This is the article written by Charles P. Pierce (Esquire magazine), which, as usual, is very revealing about Rmoney. This is because Pierce’s article essentially reveals what the average American dislikes, dreads, and fears about his candidacy for president. For example, Pierce writes,

The naked lack of shame about the whole speech was the only real story of the night. The notion of Willard Romney, Champion Of The Proletariat is so utterly preposterous that it fairly cried out for coverage. But the speech was well-crafted and delivered with something approaching actual gusto, so that, apparently, was enough for now, 

He’s getting better at being shameless. Believe that. In retrospect, it's hard to believe anyone ever took seriously the notion that Romney was not inevitable.

This is also one of the reasons that Rmoney will always be the flip-flop guy, the etch-a-sketch meme, and simply unlikable. Pierce clearly reveals this reality about Rmoney in his characterization of the “Champion of the Proletariat.”

As Pierce also observed,

This is now a sleek, edgeless machine and, at its heart, is a sleek, edgeless, but altogether genuine, carnivore. At odd moments, Romney sounds very much like Richard Nixon without the latter's merry carnival of lifetime neuroses. (Romney, in fact, unlike his father, is very much the kind of Republican Nixon once wanted to be — vicious and wealthy.) For example, at one point in last night’s speech, after he'd assured all those moms and pops on food stamps that he was on their side, he told them of their dark future if the president is re-elected:

With Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free-enterprise society. This president is putting us on a path where our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars. He's asking us to accept that Washington knows best — and can provide all.

We will have effectively ceased to be a free-enterprise society.

That passage is pure Nixon, when it is not pure Glenn Beck. (We’re back to “czars” again?) Massachusetts did not “cease to be a free-enterprise society” when he passed his health-care plan there. (He can look at my insurance bill if he’s still unclear about that.) But because he has rolled so powerfully to the nomination, he can say pretty much anything at this point because the power of his campaign now far outweighs the truth of his words. There once again is a rising sense of inevitability about him, and he is most comfortable with that. There is nothing light or casual about what he's doing. He sees a property worth buying, and he’s in it for the kill.

Quoting Paul Krugman (New York Times), “Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are?”

In the interim, the GOP right wing nuts leave an American populace with the choice of their extremism versus non-extreme ideas and policies.

For instance, the right wing nuts, in perpetuating a falsehood,  deny that President Obama is a Christian, which is a convenient falsehood they intend to use as a false rationalization for voting against Obama.

In the same breath, they also do not consider Romney to be a Christian, because he is a Mormon. However, in the case of Rmoney, they conveniently rationalize his non-Christianity as being a non-issue for them.

It is also notable that the right wing nuts as a whole share a strange sort of twisted logic that they intend to vote against the POTUS, but not for Rmoney. They same goes for their illogical rationalizations, which allows them to conveniently pretend that Obama is a communist or socialist, and that he is not even a U.S. citizen.

Their outrageous extremisms and falsehoods, while outrageously shocking are admittedly also outrageously funny at times too.

One would have thought that the right wing nuts would have found a candidate that they actually wanted as their choice for the U.S. presidency, rather than their wing nut logic of now employing a strategy of simply voting against President Obama. But, then again, the right wing nuts often belie common sense.

It perhaps for these reasons, and many other reasons, with each passing day the now emboldened right wing nuts, while in denial of non-extreme ideas and policies, seem to become even more extreme and nuttier.

In the end, as for Willard Mitt Romney, the jury is still out on who he is, and what he stands for, although it a certainty that he is the champion for neither a struggling American middle class, nor the less fortunate.

This is because everything that we have come to know about the real Romney, with leaks of information here and there, leads us to believe that he will be the champion of Wall Street and corporations, rather than the average American or real Americans.

For now and perhaps forever, for the average America or real Americans, Willard Mitt Romney remains simply out of touch with the lives of average Americans.

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Rmoney’s (Romney) Vague and Ambiguous Republican Party Script – The Old is New, Again

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: “Jon Huntsman is critical of his party and Republican candidates' foreign policy stances”, Jon Huntsman Criticizes Republican Party, Compares Actions To Communist China, Huffington Post, April 22, 2012.

Recently, former Republican Party (GOP) candidate Jon Huntsman (former U.S. Ambassador to China under President Barack Obama) made an interesting comparison between the American Republican Party and China’s political system.

In criticism of the Republican Party and its GOP candidates, as the Huffington Post reported, Huntsman was “comparing the Republican Party to communist China and questioning the strength of this year’s presidential field.”

He strongly criticized the GOP for some of its flaws. According to the Huffington Post, when doing so Huntsman cites the following recent example,

During an event at the 92nd Street Y in New York City, Huntsman spoke candidly about his party’s flaws, lamenting the Republican National Committee’s decision to rescind an invitation to a major fundraising event after Huntsman called for a third-party candidate to enter the race.

“This is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script,” Huntsman said.

The analogy with China presents a strong critique of what is wrong with the present state of the Republic Party.

As many are aware, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) governs China or the People’s Republic of China. Granted, there are about eight other independent political parties in China. The other so-called independent political parties, however, must tow the line or, borrowing from Huntsman’s characterization, they cannot “talk off script.”

This is because the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (i.e., China’s Constitution or Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xianfa) actually vested the CCP with the power to govern. For instance, an excerpt from the Preamble of China’s Constitution reads,

This Constitution, in legal form . . . it is the fundamental law of the state and has supreme authority. The people of all nationalities, all state organs, the armed forces, all political and public organizations and all enterprises and institutions in the country must take the Constitution as the basic stand of conduct, and they have the duty to uphold the dignity of the Constitution and ensure its implementation.

Then there is Article 5 of China’s Constitution, which reads, “the People’s Republic of China governs the country according to law and makes it a socialist country ruled by law.”

A direct consequence in theory, practice, and ideology is that the CCP selects members of China’s national legislature, rather than by process of a national election.

There are admittedly local elections for local officials or office holders. However, this is not the same as a democratically-elected legislature.

As mentioned in an earlier writing,

A distinguishing and much-criticized characteristic of China’s one-party model of democracy, socialist democracy or “proletariat democracy” is that neither national leaders (i.e., president, vice-president, etc), nor members of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) are subject to election to office by an electorate (i.e., the casting of votes by ordinary citizens).

In China, it presents an issue of whether there is, in fact, suffrage or universal suffrage.

It is sad and presents a crisis in American politics, especially for the American Republican Party and that those hailing themselves as Republicans and/or Republican Party candidates for political office.

This is largely due to the reality that Republican Party candidates that continue to talk “on script” arguably challenge the Western democratic ideal (i.e., from Athenian democracy, to modern democracy or democratic forms of government).

Huntsman offered a clear example of this danger, as reported by the Huffington Post, in his call “for a third-party candidate to enter the race.”

As Huntsman rightly observed,

Huntsman also spoke on Sunday about his presidential candidacy, revealing that he was less than impressed by his fellow candidates when he attended his first debate in August.

“Is this the best we could do?” Huntsman said he asked himself.

….

“Gone are the days when the Republican Party used to put forward big, bold, visionary stuff,” Huntsman said during the February interview with MSNBC that got him disinvited from the RNC fundraiser. “I think we’re going to have problems politically until we get some sort of third-party movement or some alternative voice out there that can put forward new ideas.”

This is a prefect example of how to construct an institution that will deny and defy all new ideas, innovations or solutions to problems.

Photo Source: Amanda Terkel, Sarah Steelman, Missouri GOP Senate Candidate, ‘Not Sure’ What Violence Against Women Act Is, Huffington Post, April 23, 2012.

Then there is, though indirectly, the more recent example of not being able to “talk off script” by the Missouri GOP U.S. Senate candidate, Sarah Steelman. On the issue of the “war on women,” Steelman was questioned about the pending women’s violence act that Republicans are challenging. First, and extremely difficult to believe, she answered – “I’m not sure what that is…”

Caitlin Legacki, spokesperson for the Missouri Democratic Party, took issue with her answer, especially how it “underscores how ill-equipped [Steelman] is to serve in public office.” Subsequently, Steelman, in response, issued a statement clarifying that “the candidate is open to the Republican version of the law’s reauthorization.”

First, Steelman, her support for a Republication version that Republicans are supposedly working on notwithstanding, issued a statement that first addressed the issue of the “war on women,”

“Everyday, President Obama and Senator McCaskill are making it harder for working mothers and women of all ages to find a good paying job. They continue to dictate to our families how they should live, stripping them of opportunities and freedom,” said Steelman.

Then Steelman added that “the Senate Democrats are making the current re-authorization of Violence Against Women bill into a political football.” It is notable that she now knows the full name of the law and the Republican Party script or  Republican-message of economic doom for women.

If ever there was an exemplary instance of avoidance behavior, Steelman’s response is clearly such an example. This is because, as a woman, she is either clueless or in denial of the real issues characterizing the Republican Party’s assault on the rights of women or their “war on women.”

It is appalling that Steelman is either clueless or in denial of the real issues, which are women’s rights, the right to equal pay for women, fair employment rights, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, contraception, the Blunt Amendment, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Planned Parenthood, birth control, and other issues that affect the lives of women.

But then again, maybe she simply does not know the names of these acts, especially the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Photo Source: Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Krugman, Huffington Post, April 24, 2012; See also Paul Krugman, The Amnesia Candidate, The Opinion Pages - New York Times, April 22, 2012.

Then in a broader context of “talking on script,” there is the Republican Party and its GOP sure to be nominee, Willard Mitt Romney, and his handlers. Willard is leading the charge with his economic doom message. When the economy was earlier struggling more so than now, according to Willard, President Obama is doing nothing to aid economic growth, but when the economy was clearly showing upward momentum, he said President Obama is not doing enough.

In answer to our problems, the fact that running a government is not the same as running a business notwithstanding, Romney wants to present the image of the savvy businessman that knows how to create jobs. His  answers, however, are vague generalities about what he going to do.

As Paul Krugman recently writes, “Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are? If you’ve been following his campaign from the beginning, that’s a question you have probably asked many times.”

There are exceptions, of course, because it is clear that Willard intends to cut taxes for the wealthy; keep the credits (or subsidies) for “Big Oil”; increase spending for the Pentagon; rid the nation of entitlement programs such as the Department of Education, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare; and get rid of those pesky federal regulations governing Wall Street, “Big Oil”, and environmental concerns; and get rid of Planned Parenthood.

None of which will promote economic growth.

One reasonably suspects that Romney’s economic plan, especially given the lack of details forthcoming from him, will be a standardized-version of the Republican Party economics that got us into the current economic crisis we have been facing. In other words, Willard will stay on script.

It is noteworthy that Steelman also stayed “on script.” It was obvious because when asked about an important issue concerning women’s rights (i.e., domestic violence), after regrouping she gave the stand pat Republician Party economic doom message or script. Steelman talked about women getting a job, but not about equal pay for women (i.e., the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act).

In truth, and contrary to the economic doom message of Republicans and Romney, the American economy is showing upward movement. As Fareed Zakaria recently wrote,

A new poll in the United States shows that Americans are still deeply frustrated at the slow pace of the economic recovery.  That’s understandable. Unemployment stays stubbornly high.  But I was just in Europe, and they think America is booming.

Consider this: the U.S. economy is on track to grow between 2 and 3 percent this year.  In Europe, by contrast, half the eurozone economies are going to actually shrink this year and not one major European country will grow over 1 percent….

And, most importantly, for now, it needs to stop imposing austerity in a depressed economy and learn from something from the example across the Atlantic.  Two or 2.5 percent growth might not look so great in America, but it a lot better than negative 0.3 percent, which is the current estimate for the eurozone’s economic growth.

Additionally, the Obama administration inherited the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis or 2008 global financial crisis from the Bush administration. Moreover, despite the Republican Party economic doom message or Republican Party script of economic doom, as seen from those abroad, the U.S. economy is now making a come back. As Zakaria writes, from a European perspective, “American is booming.”

In this respect, the Republican Party script promotes false perceptions about the possibility of a quick recovery. While many economists are still debating whether the 2008 global financial crisis is structural in nature and thereby predicting long term recovery, the Republican Party script stays steadfast to a false economic doom message.

The Republican Party and Rmoney (Romney) will admit neither that the onset of the financial is in 2008, nor that the financial crisis occurs during the presidency of George W. Bush. For Republican Party and Republican Party candidates, it is also noticeable that keeping on script entails never mentioning the name of their former president, George W. Bush.

By staying on script, despite the hazards that Republicans are encountering, as boldly asserted by Huntsman, “Gone are the days when the Republican Party used to put forward big, bold, visionary stuff.” In other words, the Republican Party script, as earlier mentioned, denies and defies new ideas, innovations or solutions to problems.

What the Republic Party script offers an unsuspecting American populace is a big spoon full of the same economic policies that were the cause of the 2008 global financial crisis.

When playing the devil’s advocate, if there is anything conceivably new in the Republican Party script, it can only be attributable to the saying that – the old is new again.

In the end, the Republican script is about old Republican Party economics, and an earlier failed trickle down economics, which is hardly a real solution to real problems.

>>See also the recent article by Paul Krugman, which follows.

____________________

“The Amnesia Candidate”

By Paul Krugman*

The Opinion Pages – New York Times, April 22, 2012

Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are? If you’ve been following his campaign from the beginning, that’s a question you have probably asked many times.

But the question was raised with particular force last week, when Mr. Romney tried to make a closed drywall factory in Ohio a symbol of the Obama administration’s economic failure. It was a symbol, all right — but not in the way he intended.

First of all, many reporters quickly noted a point that Mr. Romney somehow failed to mention: George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, was president when the factory in question was closed. Does the Romney campaign expect Americans to blame President Obama for his predecessor’s policy failure?

Yes, it does. Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administration’s policies had time to take effect. So the Ohio speech was a perfect illustration of the way the Romney campaign is banking on amnesia, on the hope that voters don’t remember that Mr. Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall.

How does the campaign deal with people who point out the awkward reality that all of the “Obama” job losses took place before any Obama policies had taken effect? The fallback argument — which was rolled out when reporters asked about the factory closure — is that even though Mr. Obama inherited a deeply troubled economy, he should have fixed it by now. That factory is still closed, said a Romney adviser, because of the failure of Obama policies “to really get this economy going again.”

Actually, that factory would probably still be closed even if the economy had done better — drywall is mainly used in new houses, and while the economy may be coming back, the Bush-era housing bubble isn’t.

But Mr. Romney’s poor choice of a factory for his photo-op aside, I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.

For the Bush era didn’t just end in catastrophe; it started off badly, too. Yes, Mr. Obama’s jobs record has been disappointing — but it has been unambiguously better than Mr. Bush’s over the comparable period of his administration.

This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Mr. Bush took office.

Oh, and where have those mass layoffs of schoolteachers been taking place? Largely in states controlled by the G.O.P.: 70 percent of public job losses have been either in Texas or in states where Republicans recently took control.

Which brings me to another aspect of the amnesia campaign: Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office. Basically, the G.O.P. has blocked the administration’s efforts to the maximum extent possible, then turned around and blamed the administration for not doing enough.

So am I saying that Mr. Obama did everything he could, and that everything would have been fine if he hadn’t faced political opposition? By no means. Even given the political constraints, the administration did less than it could and should have in 2009, especially on housing. Furthermore, Mr. Obama was an active participant in Washington’s destructive “pivot” away from jobs to a focus on deficit reduction.

And the administration has suffered repeatedly from complacency — taking a few months of good news as an excuse to rest on its laurels rather than hammering home the need for more action. It did that in 2010, it did it in 2011, and to a certain extent it has been doing the same thing this year too. So there is a valid critique one can make of the administration’s handling of the economy.

But that’s not the critique Mr. Romney is making. Instead, he’s basically attacking Mr. Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people — and perhaps more to the point, the news media — forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we’ll find out.

*Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. . . .

The Amnesia Candidate – NY Times

_______________

See also Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Mitt: Vote for me, but don’t ask about my Money, Swiss Bank Accounts, Offshore Accounts, Confidentialities, Non-Disclosures, Secrets, and on and on

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: Sam Stein, Romney Won't Say Whether He Would Have Signed Lilly Ledbetter Act, Huffington Post, April 16, 2012; AP.

The saga of Willard Mitt Romney and his tax returns and financial disclosures continues. In the meanwhile, Willard is not helping to boost his image public image or public perceptions, as he continues to avoid, delay or possibly deny full routine disclosures that the public expects in presidential elections.

Earlier there was the controversy concerning Romney’s financial disclosure reports. As Stephanie Condon (CBS news) reported, he used an obscure legal loophole to provide a limited picture of his assets, which leaves it unclear whether his wealth is invested in controversial companies. While doing so, he also “declined to identify the underlying assets in 48 accounts with Bain Capital because they are covered by a confidentiality agreement with the company.”

For many, Romney’s disclosure reports present serious questions about the nature of his investments. In a larger context, for many his actions foster issues of ethics, law, and the level of transparency that should be required of politicians.

There is also the issue of Romney’s tax returns. Here again, Willard earlier offered a very limited amount of information regarding his holdings, which were only his 2010 tax return and tax estimates for 2011. Recently, he filed for an extension of time to file his 2011 tax returns, which lets us know that he may not be disclosing his tax returns in the very near future.

Marc Thiessen, a former White House speechwriter for President George W. Bush, (Washington Post), writes,

On taxes, it is simply inexplicable why the Romney campaign still cannot get a handle on an issue they should have seen coming years ago. Did they learn nothing from the tax-return debacle he went through during the South Carolina primary? Romney had a double-digit lead until he fumbled the tax issue in not one, but two, Republican debates. His evasive answers, and refusal to commit to releasing his returns, drew boos from the GOP crowd and helped Newt Gingrich win an upset victory.

Even Republicans are starting to ask: What could possibly be in his old tax returns that is worse than creating the impression he has something to hide?

In his article titled, How to Predict When Mitt Romney Will Release His Tax Returns, Chris Kelly makes, though seemingly obvious to many people, an interesting point about Willard and his money. Kelly writes, “To get on board with Mitt Romney, you have to hold two ideas in your head. 1) You should vote for him, because he's made a lot of money and 2) You must never, ever ask about his money.”

The problem is that Willard is making a poor case against himself in the domain of public opinion, because by now one would think that he would want to disclose his tax returns, and by that there is an implicit understanding of a sufficient number of years of his tax returns.

Nonetheless, and as Kelly also observed, “For reasons unknowable, for months now, Mitt Romney has been fighting against releasing his past tax returns. So it's not really surprising -- just pretty ballsy -- that he's filled for an extension on his 2011 taxes, and we may not see them before mid-October.”

Then more recently, there is the criticism of Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who “ripped Mitt Romney for benefiting from the same tax loopholes as foreign despots.” By tax loopholes, Clyburn is also focusing on the issues of Romney’s Swiss bank accounts and offshore accounts.

Additionally, for those who are unaware, colloquially speaking, the term, despot, “has been applied pejoratively to a person, particularly a head of state or government, who abuses his power and authority to oppress his people, subjects or subordinates.”

In the analogy that Clyburn presents for our consideration, there are real life examples of depots. For instance, according to George B. N. Ayittey (Foreign Policy), Robert Mugabe of Zimbawe funneled off portions of public funds by using currency manipulation and offshore accounts. Ayittey also mentioned the example of Meles Zenawai of Ethiopia, who “stashed millions in foreign banks and acquired mansions in Maryland and London in his wife's name.”

The point that Clyburn is making, as mentioned in an earlier article,  is that there is an inherent danger to his concealing, hiding, and using offshore bank accounts rather than, as Warren Buffet  suggested,  “good banks in the United States.”

As earlier mentioned, the problem for Romney is that he is not helping his public image by appearing to avoid routine disclosures that we have come to expect of politicians. Moreover, and contrary to what Willard Mitt Romney may be thinking, I suspect that many potential voters will find his practices and secrecies concerning his money as unforgiving. Here again, Romney leaves himself struggling with issues of likability, trust, and genuineness.

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Geithner: Romney Misleading, Ridiculous

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: The cover from the Politics section of the Huffington Post, April 15, 2012; Elise Foley, Timothy Geithner Calls Mitt Romney Claims 'Misleading, ‘Ridiculous’, Huffington Post, April, 15, 2012.

As reported by Elise Foley (Huffington Post), on April 15, 2012, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner verbally thrashed Willard Mitt Romney and his handlers for what he rightly characterizes as their “misleading and ridiculous” claims.

In this particular instance, though the misleading and ridiculous claims by Romney’s campaign only seem to be growing in numbers, Geithner is speaking to their recent claim regarding what the Washington Post labeled as Willard’s “amazing statistic.”

According to this “amazing statistic,” during President Barack Obama's time in office, Romney attempted to claim, though an “amazing statistic” now discredited by many experts, that 92.3 percent of the jobs lost during this period were held by women, which he said was “the real war on women.”

As in earlier periods, the problem of his claim being “misleading and ridiculous” notwithstanding, it is simply another instance of Romney’s campaign at political gaming via playing with statistics or numbers.

Foley, like others, reported that, “The statement was promptly debunked by experts who pointed out that more men have lost jobs since the beginning of the recession, and that statistics can be easy to manipulate.”

Photo Source: U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Elise Foley, Timothy Geithner Calls Mitt Romney Claims 'Misleading, ‘Ridiculous’, Huffington Post, April, 15, 2012; AP.

In this respect, Geithner rightly characterized the Romney campaign as making “misleading and ridiculous” claims. Geithner also rightly maintains that by employing “misleading and ridiculous” claims, especially by political gaming with statistics, Romney and his campaign team effectually reduces the quality of debate over economic policy.

In other words, as a consequence of Romney’s political gaming, and sadly for an American populace in search of real answers to real problems, the quality of debate he now offers concerning economic policy, and quoting Geitner, is “really terrible.”

This is a situation only exacerbated by the fact that Willard Mitt Romney is doing so for the purpose of closing a polling gap with potential women voters. One could even, though sad for American politics, characterize Romney’s efforts as a sort of failed attempt to flip-flap or present a new “etch-a-sketch” political moment in his campaign.

As we hear more and more from Romney’s campaign, American voters learn less from Romney’s campaign efforts, while also sadly learning that he simply doesn’t get it. This is because, for many of us, on the real issue of women’s rights he remains clueless. Romney’s campaign presents the unfolding of a truism that he neither understands, nor wishes to embrace the real issues and real problems of women’s rights.

Never mind what genuinely appears to be an assault by the GOP on women’s rights, for Romney women appear to be no more than a commodity that he would regale to the domestic.

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Hirshman Reminds ‘Us’ of the ‘Real Issues’ That Affect the Lives of Women

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen has apologized Ann Romney after saying the wife of GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney "never worked a day in her life." Image source: Reuters, AP; The Blaze, Hilary Rosen Apologizes to Ann Romney: ‘Let’s put the Faux ‘War Against Stay-at-Home Mom’s’ to Rest, April 13, 2012.

During the past week, the news media, for at least a day, directed a great deal of attention toward the controversy between Hilary Rosen and Ann Romney, the wife of Willard Mitt Romney. For many it seemed that the controversy provided some excitement from the routine of politics, for some it may have been entertaining, and for others it may well have been a call to arms. The source of last week’s excitement was, of course, Rosen’s assertion that Ann Romney “has never worked a day in her life.”

When first hearing about Rosen’s comment, I did not think much, if anything, about what she said. This is mostly due to the fact that Rosen is neither a candidate for political office, nor speaks on behalf of President Obama as a member of his campaign team. From my perspective, the growing interest in this incident and the extent of the media coverage was surprising, because during this period the relevancy, if any, of this controversy did not dawn on me.

Today, however, I read Linda Hirshman’s article about Rosen’s comment. Her article is well-written and, at least for me, takes this seemingly trivial moment in politics and actually gives it both meaning and relevancy. When speaking about relevancy, I mean what, if anything, can we come away with from this controversy, which is both informative and revealing about real political issues and political positions of the candidates.

With that being said, and quoting an excerpt from her article,  Hirshman writes,

Unemployment is not the only issue on which women in the formal workplace split from their informally occupied sisters. Equal pay is another. And that is more complicated for Mitt Romney, given his support of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who led the charge to repeal his state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which protected women against pay discrimination. Recently, a Romney aide was unable to say whether the candidate supported the latest addition to federal equal-pay law, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which guarantees equal pay for equal work.

Women whose work consists of caring for their households and children don’t need to worry about being paid less than their male counterparts. First, they aren’t paid at all, in any formal sense, and second, unless their husbands take a male spouse alongside them — an unlikely social development — they won’t confront sex discrimination at their workplace. Actually, Romney himself, a proud member of the capitalist economy and of a religious minority with a history of discrimination, has more in common with female workers than his wife does in discouraging arbitrary workplace discrimination. Ann Romney huffily reminded her husband’s detractors that some of his best employees have been women. But they were his employees; why is he using his wife to get that message out?. . . . 

All women, for example, have an interest in controlling their reproduction. They may choose to put the issue in the hands of some god, or they may choose to control it themselves, but it is an issue on which women as a group differ from men as a group. What might Ann Romney say about the interest of women in birth control?

Or in breast cancer detection and research, an area where women have an interest different from all but a tiny handful of men? When the Susan G. Komen foundation announced cuts to breast-cancer-related funding for Planned Parenthood, Mitt Romney might have had his wife address that issue, in which, as a breast cancer survivor, she happens to have a real personal stake. . . .

Maybe Ann Romney would like to address the relentless Republican opposition to the Family and Medical Leave Act.

For those interested in understanding the real import of this controversy, I highly recommend that you read Hirshman’s article in its entirety. This is because, as earlier mentioned, she gives real meaning and relevancy to what many would perceive as a seemingly trivial moment in politics.

As Hirshman observed, “In the furor, everyone seemed to forget that unpaid mothers and household work are not what the discussion is about. Republicans are not talking about how jobs for stay-at-home moms have decreased under Obama.”

Moreover, this is not to say that I lack respect for women who stay at home and take care of their child or children, it is just that, as Hirshman’s reveals for us, the plight of the stay at home moms was never the real issue.

In the end, the real issues are women’s rights, the right to equal pay for women, fair employment rights, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, contraception, the Blunt Amendment, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Planned Parenthood, birth control, and other issues that affect the lives of women.

>>The article by Linda Hirshman follows.

____________________

“Hilary Rosen was right: Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life”

By Linda Hirshman*, Huffington Post, April 13, 2012 --

Beltway pundit Hilary Rosen committed a mortal sin of American politics: She spoke the truth with a microphone on.

“What you have,” she told Anderson Cooper on Wednesday night, “is Mitt Romney running around the country saying: ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’

“Guess what?” Rosen observed. “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

With that, the storm erupted.

Of course stay-at-home moms “work,” women from Barbara Bush to Michelle Obama quickly asserted. All that housekeeping and child care is a lot of work. President Obama, apparently needing more distance from Rosen’s comments, suggested Thursday that candidates’ spouses should be “off limits” altogether.

And surely, taking care of a family is hard work. In Ann Romney’s case, managing the very elaborate Romney establishment — five children, three or four houses and two Cadillacs — probably takes as much labor as most jobs in the market economy. Within 24 hours, Rosen was apologizing to all those women laboring in their homes for implying that they don’t work.

In the furor, everyone seemed to forget that unpaid mothers and household work are not what the discussion is about. Republicans are not talking about how jobs for stay-at-home moms have decreased under Obama.

They are talking about how paid work for women has suffered. Mitt Romney said this past week that 92 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women. Erick Erickson, a Republican commentator who joined Rosen on Cooper’s CNN show, argued that the president is responsible for the decline of women’s jobs in the paid workplace.

And work as she may, that’s one place Ann Romney has never been. She has spent her life in the private precincts of the marital workplace, where emotional ties replace the financial norms of the factory or office.

Now, she has emerged to campaign for her husband and to explain to him what women want. “I’ve had the fun of being out with my wife the last several days on the campaign trail,” Mitt Romney told Fox News this month. “And she points out that as she talks to women, they tell her that their number one concern is the economy.”

At a recent campaign event, Romney said he wished his wife were there to help answer a question about female voters. “She says that she’s going across the country and talking with women, and what they’re talking about is the debt that we’re leaving the next generation and the failure of this economy to put people back to work.”

When Ann Romney’s husband, who faces a gender gap in some polls, uses her experience and insight as a megaphone for women’s concern over fewer paid jobs, he mistakenly assumes that all women are fungible. Which was, I take it, Rosen’s original point.

Although Ann Romney may be a fine spokesperson on some issues, the dirty little secret of angling for female votes is that while all women’s work, inside or outside the home, has the same worth, as Michelle Obama and Barbara Bush sweetly expressed, all women do not have the same interests. Women who work in the home do not have the same interest in the recovery of the formal job market as women who have to work for pay. Indeed, wage-earning women probably have more in common with their paycheck-dependent male co-workers on the subject of economic recovery than with household laborers such as Ann Romney.

Unemployment is not the only issue on which women in the formal workplace split from their informally occupied sisters. Equal pay is another. And that is more complicated for Mitt Romney, given his support of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who led the charge to repeal his state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which protected women against pay discrimination. Recently, a Romney aide was unable to say whether the candidate supported the latest addition to federal equal-pay law, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which guarantees equal pay for equal work.

Women whose work consists of caring for their households and children don’t need to worry about being paid less than their male counterparts. First, they aren’t paid at all, in any formal sense, and second, unless their husbands take a male spouse alongside them — an unlikely social development — they won’t confront sex discrimination at their workplace. Actually, Romney himself, a proud member of the capitalist economy and of a religious minority with a history of discrimination, has more in common with female workers than his wife does in discouraging arbitrary workplace discrimination. Ann Romney huffily reminded her husband’s detractors that some of his best employees have been women. But they were his employees; why is he using his wife to get that message out?

Ann Romney could of course speak for some interests common to all women (and not common to men). All women, for example, have an interest in controlling their reproduction. They may choose to put the issue in the hands of some god, or they may choose to control it themselves, but it is an issue on which women as a group differ from men as a group. What might Ann Romney say about the interest of women in birth control?

Or in breast cancer detection and research, an area where women have an interest different from all but a tiny handful of men? When the Susan G. Komen foundation announced cuts to breast-cancer-related funding for Planned Parenthood, Mitt Romney might have had his wife address that issue, in which, as a breast cancer survivor, she happens to have a real personal stake.

Many women in the market economy share with women at home a desire for a more forgiving workplace, one where they could both work for pay and have better family lives. Maybe Ann Romney would like to address the relentless Republican opposition to the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Although Democrats, who are especially dependent on female voters in swing states, probably don’t think so, Rosen’s gaffe may be a blessing. It’s time to stop treating women as if we were one monolithic interest group. In the highly contested demographic of white female voters, married women such as Ann Romney who derive their livelihoods from the success of their husbands vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. And Republicans such as Wisconsin’s Walker tend to look after the interests of men, in, say, being paid more than women with the same job. Maybe Democrats ought to concentrate on those voters — single women, wage-earning women — who do have an interest in equal pay.

After a whirlwind few days, Rosen on Friday canceled a scheduled appearance on “Meet the Press.” In a statement, she explained that she had said everything she wanted to on the matter. “I apologized to Mrs. Romney and work-in-home moms for mistakenly giving the impression that I do not think their work is valuable. Of course it is. I will instead spend the weekend trying to explain to my kids the value of admitting a mistake and moving on.”

But what if Rosen could teach her kids something more valuable: what it means to say something true and difficult, and stand by it. Her comments were uncharacteristically tone-deaf. But her call to focus on those women who are really hurt by job losses was pitch-perfect.

*Linda Hirshman is the author of “Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World” and the forthcoming “Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution.” Follow her on Twitter @LindaHirshman1.

Hilary Rosen was right: Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

The China-Philippines Territorial Dispute – South China Sea – A Near Broach of Peace

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: “The Philippines' largest warship is in a stand-off with Chinese vessels in the South China Sea”, Reuters; See Philippines 'withdraws warship' amid China stand-off, BBC news, April 12, 2012.

The maritime dispute in the China South Sea, according to recent news source, such as BBC news, between the competing interests of China and the Philippines recently almost broached the peace between these two nations.

As mentioned in an earlier writing,

The dispute concerning issues of sovereignty over the South China Sea has a long history, notwithstanding the dispute over the East China Sea – the Senkaku Islands or Diaoyutai Islands (Diaoyutai Qundao). The Spratly Islands comprise about forty-five (45) islands. These islands are also occupied by military units from Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and the Philippines. There is even occupancy, though not a military occupancy, of an island by Brunei, which claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (i.e., the Law of the Sea) in the southeastern part of the Spratly Islands.

This time the dispute involves the commercial activities of Chinese fishing vessels. The area in dispute occurred in the the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, which is on the northwest coast of the Philippines.

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, as reported by BBC news, a Philippine coast guard vessel arrived in the Scarborough Shaol, and after boarding the Chinese fishing vessels found “a large amount of illegally-caught fish and coral.”

After boarding the Chinese fishing vessels, two Chinese surveillance ships subsequently arrived in the area, and positioned their ships between the Philippine’s coast guard ship and the fishing vessels; thereby, preventing the Philippine’s coast guard from making arrests.

China’s take on the story, according to BBC news, is that the Philippine’s coast guard were harassing the Chinese fishermen. Additionally, as concerns the maritime right of China, as reported by BBC news,

“China should take more measures to safeguard its maritime territory,” the newspaper stated.

“The latest moves by China's two neighbours are beyond tolerance,” it added, also referring to Vietnam. “They are blatant challenges to China’s territorial integrity.”

In the aftermath of this incident, the dispute between China and the Philippines, as it has always been, is now a diplomatic dispute.

In the way of background information, for the past year, the disputes on the sovereignty claims of China, Vietnam, and the Philippines have been growing in intensity, as each of these nations vie for much-needed resources.

This is because what is at stake, as mentioned in an earlier writing, “the right of sovereignty symbolizes the right of access to much-needed natural resources, which includes the prize of access to potential oil and natural gas supplies. More accurately, these natural resources include fish, guano, and undermined oil and natural gas potentials.”

A problem for the international community is that the territorial disputes arising in the South China Sea are international in dimension, involve issues of international law (i.e., govern by the International Law of Sea), and affects many nations, including nations, such as the United States, which do not have a sovereign interest in the South China Sea.

It is especially for this reason, the involvement, if any, of the United States in these territorial disputes present the potential for difficult problems, difficulties in U.S. diplomacy, and clear and certain potential dangers.

For instance, a potential problem arises from officials in the Philippines seeking enhanced U.S. military support in the South China Sea against what many perceive as China’s new assertiveness in the South China Sea.

Granted, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did earlier announce, “We are concerned that recent incidents in the South China Sea could undermine peace and stability.” The United States has even recently expanded its military presence in the Asia-Pacific, such as the installment of a new military base in nearby Australia.

However, whether the United States will militarily engage China’s seemingly new assertiveness in the South China Sea presents a potential for a crisis in U.S. diplomacy. There are problems with U.S. military intervention, the problem of growing economic interdependence between the U.S. and China notwithstanding, in support of the sovereignty claims of the Philippines.

First, the United States must address its own right to freely navigation the South China Sea, including the issue of the right of U.S. military warships to operate in China’s two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). As Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Council on Foreign Affairs, observed,

The most likely and dangerous contingency is a clash stemming from U.S. military operations within China’s EEZ that provokes an armed Chinese response. The United States holds that nothing in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or state practice negates the right of military forces of all nations to conduct military activities in EEZs without coastal state notice or consent. China insists that reconnaissance activities undertaken without prior notification and without permission of the coastal state violate Chinese domestic law and international law.

Second, as Glaser also noted, “A second contingency involves conflict between China and the Philippines over natural gas deposits, especially in the disputed area of Reed Bank, located eighty nautical miles from Palawan. Oil survey ships operating in Reed Bank under contract have increasingly been harassed by Chinese vessels.”

The United States could also arguably find itself drawn into a China-Philippines conflict under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines. A problem for the Philippines is a U.S. diplomatic approach that maintains that it will not take sides in the sovereignty disputes concerning the South China Sea, while also refusing to comment on how the United States would actually respond in the event of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. For the Philippines, this presents a problematic gap between Manila’s expectations and Washington’s policy view of its U.S. obligations (i.e., the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines).

Moreover, for many China’s geopolitical posturing regarding its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea is difficult to understand. This may well be due to many actually underestimating the diplomatic skills or the skills in geopolitical posturing of Beijing officials.

For instance, and quoting from an earlier writing,

Although Beijing persists in reminding all other claimant countries that the South China Sea is Chinese sovereign territory, China has been very careful about not officially demarcating its specific maritime claims. Thus, other countries can only infer China’s specific claims from Beijing’s statements and actions, and China retains the option to change or redefine its maritime border according to the situation (Dana Robert Dillon, U.S. Role in South China Sea Dispute, Paracel and Spratly Islands Forum, January 2008).

As evidenced by this brief quote, Beijing’s statements and actions (i.e., a growing assertiveness) actually speak to a seemingly well thought out diplomacy or skillful geopolitical posturing. Additionally, at least for now, one reasonably suspects, especially in light of Washington policy position regarding U.S. obligations under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, the United States will not employ military force on behalf of the Philippines to resolve the China-Philippines South China Sea territorial dispute.

In other words, for now, the Philippines appear situated in an impasse between the balancing of Chinese geopolitical posturing against American geopolitical posturing.

In the end, for today, the good news is that the dispute did not evolve into a “shooting” war, because the territorial dispute for the moment remains a war of words.

_______________

See also East and South China Seas

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Mitt, Bain Breaking the Glass Ceiling – Denies Being ‘Insufficiently Supportive’ of Women?

By M. Ulric Killion

Photo Source: “A repeated Romney jab at Obama has been rated 'mostly false' by Politifact,”Reuters; Reid J. Epstein, Mitt Romney fumbles on women's issues, Politico.com, April 11, 2012.

The GOP sure to be nominee, Willard Mitt Romney, and his handlers, are either out of their minds or think the American public is extremely gullible and as a whole lacking one iota of common sense. I say this, because in the face of poor polling on issues affecting the lives of women he is now seemingly, without conscious, trying to take a position on women’s rights that diametrically opposes his life, his career at Bain Capital, and his earlier and current political career and political positions.

Amanda Terkel (Huffington Post) writes, “In recent days, Mitt Romney's campaign has been trying to squash the perception that he's bad with the ladies.”

However, when one looks at his record and positions on women’s rights, the contraception issue, Planned Parenthood, abortion, health care, and the Blunt Amendment, the new twist (i.e., flip-flop) to his political tale is shocking, and begs the question, just who is swallowing the bait?

Willard is now revealing his new flip-flop or etch-a-sketch meme, while also reviving the relevancy of Seamus the dog riding on top of his car in an air tight container, which will forever serve as the epitome of his inability to show compassion and sympathy for others.

What is especially troubling about Willard and his handlers is that by taking blatantly false positions on critical issues of our time, such as women’s rights, they essentially trivialize these critical issues. The issue of women’s rights is a real issue about real life, which should not be reducible to a game or game of politics.

Photo Source: “Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, holds a flyer as he speaks in Hartford, Conn., Wednesday, April 11, 2012. Romney is intensifying his rebuttal of claims that he and fellow Republicans are insufficiently supportive of women, or even hostile to them. For the second straight day the presumptive GOP nominee campaigned Wednesday at a female-owned work site and denounced Democrats for saying his party is waging "a war on women” (AP Photo/Steven Senne). See also Romney holds the sheet that contains what the Associated Press dubs his “amazing statistic”, though, “it is dubious at best”, FACT CHECK: Romney’s eye-popping statistic on job losses by women raises eyebrows, too, Washington Post via AP, April 12, 2012.

For instance, as many are now aware, Willard is now talking about statistics that supposedly show that “Women account for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama.” The immediate problem for now is that PoliticoFact.com, when conducting a fact check found the assertion to be “mostly false.” They found his assertion to be mostly false because,

By comparing job figures with January 2009 and March 2012 and weighing them against women’s job figures from the same periods, Saul came up with 92.3 percent. The numbers are accurate but quite misleading. First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming. Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men. In every recession, men are the first to take the hit, followed by women. It's a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama's policies.

As the Washington Post also recently reported,

Mitt Romney has come up with an “amazing statistic” and Republicans inside and outside his presidential campaign are doing their utmost to spread it around: “92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women.”

Amazing it may be. As a meaningful measure of Obama’s economic record and its effect on women, though, it is dubious at best.

In response to Willard’s “amazing statistic,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, a financial services company, said, “This is political gaming.”

Additionally, whether one characterizes Willard’s new etch-a-sketch meme as “mostly false” or of “suspect” quality, it still does little to alleviate his poor record on women’s rights. As earlier mentioned he has a record on women’s right that will be extremely difficult for him to flip-flop on, unless, through some miracle, he is able to find the most willing and gullible to take his bait.

Then there is his private life at Bain Capital, which mostly remains a mystery. Willard as a co-founder of Bain Capital did, however, leave some evidence about his perspectives on life and people from this earlier period of his career.

In 1994, while still associated with Bain Capital, because he did not leave the firm until 1996, Romney challenged the senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). When doing so, Willard publicly announced his credentials as a man “dedicated to helping women and minorities shatter the glass ceiling.”

However, as Roger Fallihee rightly observed, “But, as is often the case with Mr. Romney, the rhetoric doesn’t match the results.”

In the 1994 debate against Senator Kennedy, Willard said (See YouTube video),

“I believe that public companies… should be required to report… the number of minorities and women… so we can identify where the glass ceiling is and break through it.”

This is his vision for breaking the glass ceiling for women and minorities. The problem is that he, thought not surprising, is talking about only breaking through the glass ceilings of public companies, rather than private companies, such as Bain Capital.

During this period, Bain Capital had 81 managing directors. According to Fallihee, “Of the 81 Managing Directors six are women and none appear to be African American.” Further, he states that for those aspiring to the position of managing director, “it would help greatly if you were a man, not African American, and have a BA or an MBA from Harvard.”

Fallihee even went as far as to contact the Harvard Business School African American Alumni Association, and verify that there was not a shortage of African American candidates with Harvard Business degrees (i.e., during this period over 2,200 graduates). Although, in rhetoric, “his entire life has been dedicated to breaking the glass ceiling,” Romney and Bain Capital never attempted to recruit African American Harvard Business School graduates.

Photo Source: Sen. Ted Kennedy campaign ad in 1994; Jason Cherkis, Mitt Romney Also Attacked On Women's Issue By Ted Kennedy's '94 Campaign (VIDEO), Huffington Post, April 11, 2012.

During this earlier period and in response to question about the hiring practices of Bain Capital, Willard is quoted as saying, “It's a profession that has yet to attract many women and minorities.”

There are also, and quoting the Huffington Post,  other sources, such as the Boston Global, which described the recruitment of women and minorities as being “almost exclusively white and male, adding that ‘there are no minorities among the 95 vice presidents of Bain & Co. Only 10 percent are women.’”

According to Jason Cherkis (Huffington Post),

The gender issue proved critical in that 1994 race, explained Tad Devine, a senior advisor and ad man for the Kennedy campaign.

“I think this narrative as Romney as a manager who couldn't find a lot of slots for women .... I thought that was a very powerful story. I think it had a lot of impact,” Devine says. “We were trying to talk to women in particular -- non-college educated women specifically. That narrative of Romney not being a good boss ... I think that was very helpful in terms of the story we were trying to tell.”

Moreover, the story has an ending that is familiar to us. Before publishing his article, Fallihee sent an email to Romney’s campaign advising them about a pending publication concerning the lack of women and African American managing directors employed by Bain Capital, while also asking them a question about the employment of women and African American managing directors.

However, as Willard did when recently questioned about Bain Capital selling surveillance cameras to the Chinese government, he also failed to respond to Fallihee’s question.

As stated in an earlier writing, “‘Ritchie’ Romney is either in denial of his actions or simply dismissive of all things contrary to the beliefs of a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth.”

>>There is also the following article by Amanda Terkel, which addresses voting records and issues of women’s rights from the perspective of Willard Mitt Romney’s women surrogates. The following article is important, because it may well be the clearest indication of Romney’s position on women’s rights, rather than trying to have faith in his rhetoric.

____________________

“Mitt Romney's Women Surrogates Voted Against Pay Equity Enforcement, Blasted Feminism”

By Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, April 11, 2012 --

WASHINGTON -- In recent days, Mitt Romney's campaign has been trying to squash the perception that he's bad with the ladies.

It's been bringing out everyone from Ann Romney -- who insists that her husband really isn't “stiff” when you "unzip him" -- to other prominent Republican women. All are trying to make the case that the former Massachusetts governor will look out for women's rights if elected president.

But the records of some of these surrogates seem to undermine the campaign's message.

The campaign stumbled for a moment during a Wednesday call with reporters, when a Romney aide was unable to answer whether the former governor supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama signed the measure into law in 2009 and considers it one of the keynote achievements of his presidency. The law provides women with more legal channels to pursue receiving equal pay for equal work. Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul later clarified that Romney “supports pay equity and is not looking to change current law.”

But two of his surrogates did vote against the legislation in Congress. On Wednesday, the campaign sent out statements from Republican Reps. Mary Bono Mack of California and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, blaming women’s jobs losses on Obama's policies. But both women voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Act as well as the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act.

A March 29 Wisconsin Women for Romney call with reporters featured Wisconsin state Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and conservative activist Bay Buchanan. Darling was a cosponsor of legislation repealing her state's 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which was designed to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by granting workers more avenues for pressing charges. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill into law last week.

Buchanan has railed against feminism, stating in 1999 that the movement has hurt women. She blamed the high number of divorces, single-parent households and teen suicides on feminism in part.

“If the movement is about helping women, if it is moving them in a better direction, women have not done that well,” Buchanan said then. “This is not a good direction for the nation to be taking.”

And on Fox News on Monday night, Romney surrogate South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) was totally off-message, saying, “There is no war on women. Women are doing well.”

The Romney campaign is claiming that women account for more than 92 percent of jobs lost under Obama, but Politifact rated that statement as “mostly false.” The Romney campaign is now disputing this characterization.

Mitt Romney's Women Surrogates Voted Against Pay Equity Enforcement, Blasted Feminism

_______________

See also The Republican Conundrum

All Rights Reserved by M. Ulric Killion, 2012.