[caption id="attachment_1948" align="alignright" width="371"] Craig Warga/ NY Daily News[/caption]

So as McKay Coppins pointed out on BuzzFeed, "Within minutes of Mitt Romney officially winning the Republican nomination, the Facebook page for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posted a blunt reminder that it is “politically diverse.”  And so I will attempt to express that political diversity with my own comments about the first day of the Republican National Convention.  See below for the LDS Church's new video.

In case you didn't happen to watch the RNC's first day, (yesterday having been scrapped for fears that Hurricane Isaac would wipe out Tampa Bay like what Vesuvius did for Pompeii,) then you didn't miss nothing but a lot of hot air blowing around.  A bunch of people spoke including John Boehner who proved that the swirling special effects behind his head can be more interesting than all his "a guy walked into a bar" jokes that never got to the punchline. And then the pink governors on parade began: the Governors of Ohio, Nevada, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Virginia all got up there as if to remind their constituents, "You voted Republican once, why not again?" Also we heard from Santorum, and he was only interesting because everyone knew he'd say something crazy. They also showcased the engaging Mia Love - (have you heard of her yet?) But then there was turncoat Arthur Davis.  He is an anomaly to me.  But considering how he flipped from being an Obama supporter to stumping for Romney in just four years, maybe he is the perfect speaker at a convention to nominate the biggest flip-flopper of them all.

Well, if you wanted to hear what Ann Romney had to say, it started like this,  "This is gonna be so exciting!" And I wondered... what? the convention? a Romney presidency? or her talk?  (She is Mormon, so it was most definitely a talk.) But let me get all my snark out of the way: I couldn't decide if Ann Romney sounded more like Sarah Palin (I LOOOOVE YOU WOMEEN!) or a second counselor in a bygone-era RS Presidency.  (Have you noticed that some of the women speakers in General Conference smile all through their talks? Ann Romney sure has.)  But her smiling laughter and awkward guffaws aside, I am bothered that she spent so much time talking about the poor and the downtrodden of America, when her husband's plan to help these people is to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and slash taxes for the rich, with some expectation that these wealthy Americans will hopefully create more jobs (or give to more charities) and trickle that wealth on down like rain water through a sewage ditch.  (Click here to see my last trickle-down economics metaphor.)

However, Ann Romney appeared to be genuine in her praise for her husband.  Of course, she has an incredible amount of love and respect for him.  She has seen his hard work and dedication as a leader in church and as governor of Massachusetts.  At one point, she said of Romney, "No one will work harder, no one will care more, and no one will move heaven and earth like Mitt Romney to make this country a better place to live."  She also spoke of Mitt's passion for serving, and how he doesn't brag about it: "Mitt doesn't like to talk about how he's helped others, because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point."

Clearly, Ann Romney was on the stage to humanize her husband and to show America the side of him that only she might see.  Well, I guess I wasn't expecting her to seem so awkward herself.  I guess that both Mitt and Ann are a little on the socially inept end of the spectrum, (hence, their "real marriage").  I will be interested to see how "America" (whoever that is) views her address.

The night closed with Governor Christie, who proved he isn't as likable as he you'd imagine him to be, and who also proved that he was running for the President of New Jersey (or of the USA 2016).  But I'm not complaining; his speech spurred the instant-classic moment of the evening: a guy in the convention hall gets projected onto the screen behind Christie while yelling, "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!" Wrong convention, wrong candidate.  (Watch for him at 17:17.)

And Condoleezza Rice looked so tired.  Did somebody force her to be there?  By the way, if you check back tomorrow, you may or may not find a review of day 2. We may want to go to bed early, and unlike Condi, nobody is forcing us to show up.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxbEbxeQVo?rel=0]

Post by Eric R -

You have probably heard about the dust-up over a comment Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made about Ann Romney a few days ago. What Rosen actually said was that “you have Mitt Romney running around, 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? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing.”

Of course the words Rosen chose were not good, but that does not mean the point she was trying to make wasn’t true. The fact is that Ann Romney had the luxury to choose to stay home to raise the family’s children, and she actually has no idea what it is like to struggle to make ends meet in a tough economy. That isn’t an insult; it is just a fact.

Of course it is no surprise that the right-wing media has been doing their best to paint the left (Obama) as hostile to traditional values (They hate motherhood, for goodness sakes!) A regular Fox contributor, Dr. Keith Ablow, provided an illustrative example of the discourse coming from the Right on the subject when he said: “Women who are happy raising families don’t have much ‘cred’ with Rosen or, for that matter, President Obama, because Rosen and Obama resonate only with those who carry the flag of the disenfranchised and abused.  Anyone who thrives in an American company or American home, while proud and happy with any element of traditional American values, must be a hopeless automaton or relic of the oppressive past.” Yup, that is exactly what Rosen was saying, I’m sure.

Far from being concerned with women, of course the Right is concerned that Mitt Romney trails Obama by nearly 20 percentage points among likely women voters. And why does Obama have such a big lead among women voters? Well, as a man I don’t know that I am qualified to say, but I have a hunch it may have something to do with how Republicans have behaved with regards to issues that impact women particularly.

I found two (admittedly biased) sources detailing some of the Republican low-lights from the recent past with regards to women’s issues: Media Matters and MoveOn.org. Taking them for what they are worth, they are helpful in giving a broader picture of what types of measures Republican legislators across the country have been pushing for, (and all their sources are linked, so you can check them out for yourself). Here are just a few:

1) More than 150 Republicans signed on to a bill that would have redefined under what circumstances an institution receiving government funds could provide an abortion, replacing “rape” with “forcible rape”. With this language change, statutory rape, say a 13-year old impregnated by a 30-year-old for instance, would not qualify.

2) The Republican spending plan proposed to eliminated entirely Title X, which provides family planning for low-income Americans. And no, “family planning” is not just a code word for “abortions”, as birth control, pre-natal care, teen pregnancy prevention programs and other crucial health services are part of Title X.

3) The House GOP plan would also cut more than $750 million from food programs for low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies and children.

4) Republican lawmakers in Maryland cut Head Start funding, saying that it was not needed since mothers could just choose to stay home with their children instead. And at the federal level, Republicans cut $1 billion from the program, which could kick 200,000 low-income kids off the roles, and see some 55,000 instructors and teachers loose their jobs.

5) The Republican’s 2011 budget proposal cut $2 billion from job training programs, which are designed to help workers in low-wage, low-skill, and low-security jobs – disproportionately women – prepare for employment in growth areas.

6) Because women comprise more than two-thirds of the poor over age 65, Republican-proposed cuts in food, housing and job programs for senior citizens would disproportionately hurt elderly women.

7) The Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, signed a bill (passed along party lines) repealing the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges.  Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court. "Economic security is a women's health issue," said Sara Finger, executive director of WAWH. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women's health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access."

As I said before, these are just a few examples of what types of actions Republican legislatures are taking all around the country with regards to issues that impact women the most (and I didn’t even mention the proposed laws that would force women seeking an abortion to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound first). So while we can all agree that a mother who has the ability to make a choice to stay home with her children is a good thing, I think the Republicans are going to need a lot more than a poor choice of words from a Democratic strategist to convince women they are actually on their side.