Like many, I have spent the last 24 hours just digesting the big news of the weekend - Mitt Romney announcing his choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate. One of the reactions that made me angriest and laugh hardest at at the same time was Andrea Mitchell - reporting live for MSNBC.
"This is a base election. This is not a pick for suburban moms, this is not a pick for women."
This is the same Andrea Mitchell who is married to former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, who can afford to live in a Manhattan high rise? How in God's name does she think she even has half a clue of what this (and many other suburban moms like me) go through. We can't afford front row seats to Broadway gala's like Ms. Mitchell does. We can't afford designer clothes like she does. She has no clue what my life is like.
GOP Chair Reince Priebus has a clue.....
President Obama is busy attempting to make this election about small things and ridiculous distractions, but no matter what, Americans cannot escape the harsh realities of the Obama economy. Even a trip to the grocery store has become more difficult for struggling families.
To help illustrate this, consider Julia, the fictional character created by the Obama campaign.
Let’s say Julia goes shopping. She buys the groceries she purchases regularly—produce middle-class Americans might obtain on any given trip to the store. White bread, ground beef, red apples, beans, flour, turkey, and so on.
As it happens, Julia has a receipt from just before Obama took office for the same items. Same groceries, pre-Obama. What does she find? She’s now paying higher prices. There’s been a nearly 15 percent increase since Mr. Obama took office.
Over the last three and half years, we’ve seen median incomes fall. Workers are making less, provided they have jobs at all. Unemployment has been above 8 percent for 42 straight months, and over 23 million people are struggling to find enough work.
It's getting harder and harder for middle class women, Ms. Mitchell, to feed our families. The cost of groceries and gas keeping going up and up and with our jobs less secure than ever, we wonder if we will be able to continue to live indoors. The result of these concerns have lead to many mothers to feel less than certain about supporting the President.
According to a national Reuters/Ipsos poll of 25- to 45-year-olds, mothers tend to differ from women without children on issues ranging from the economy, taxes and military spending to healthcare and birth control -- as well as on presidential candidates.
Childless working women favor Obama over Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican nominee, by a striking 20 points, 46 percent to 26 percent. "Obama has done pretty well, stimulating the economy, getting out of Iraq and investing in healthcare," said Joanna Giddens, 27, who works for a Denver nonprofit and can't afford health insurance.
Working mothers were less likely to favor the president, by 42 percent to 34 percent. Stay-at-home mothers such as Formato, along with unemployed mothers, gave the president only a 5-point margin: 37 percent to 32 percent.
This is a huge drop from the 2008 Hope And Change express.
The other thing that this poll highlights is something that the lefts bitter clinging to abortion rights is doing for them...nothing.
Colorado, where polls show the president with a slight lead, is among a handful of states experiencing the most intense barrage of negative ads. However, a score of women interviewed there over several days said they mute or fast-forward through the vitriol, and few were aware of the controversies over birth control or abortion.
Most were pro-choice on abortion and said all insurance plans should cover contraception, but they viewed these issues as secondary to jobs, education and general healthcare reform.
Emphasis mine. Logical Lady Carol Platt Liebau has it right.....
But what Ms. Mitchell and others of her ilk don't understand is that moms are, by necessity, future-oriented and forward-thinking. We care about whether our children will have to live in a society where unelected bureaucrats ultimately decide what health care they can have when they're old (the inevitable outcome for controlling costs of a government-centric system like ObamaCare). We care about whether social security and Medicare will exist as solvent entities for our children. And we REALLY care about whether our children are going, in effect, to have to work most of their lives just to subsidize the outsized, over-intrusive, deficit-crippled government structure President Obama has been trying to lock into place.
Moms are tired of having to be afraid of what the future holds. We want to be able to embrace the future, confident that we can offer our children the same kind of bright, opportunity-filled tomorrows that our parents offered us. Romney-Ryan offers both assurance and reassurance -- that the ship of state can, in fact, be steered back on course, and they know how to do it.
Oh, and moms are also practical. If America keeps on doing what it's been doing, it will keep on getting what it has been getting. If we don't like what we've been getting -- high unemployment, hostility to productive people, sky-high deficits, a sclerotic economy, record numbers of Americans on welfare -- why would we keep the team that's been doing the things that create them?
So the next time that the diversity centric left presumes to speak for one group of people or another, maybe we just need to stand up and say...
EXCUSE ME MS. MITCHELL - who are you to presume to speak for me? I can speak quite well for myself...thank you very much! Like the rest of this country, women are a diverse lot and not all of us are childless, wealthy, paid media. You would not survive my middle class life so don't presume to think that you know what the Paul Ryan choice means for me...because you don't!