A couple of days ago, the Senate narrowly defeated the Blunt amendment, which would have repealed President Obama’s controversial requirement that insurance companies provide birth control coverage for women employees. By a vote of 51-48, the almost all-male Senate decided maybe, just maybe, women should be able to have control over their reproductive decisions and that the medication should be paid for by insurance companies regardless of where the female employees work.
When asked his opinion about the Blunt amendment, Romney wiffled and waffled and stated that he did not support the amendment. Apparently his “team” did a double-take and told him “no, Mitt, you didn’t really mean what you said about not supporting the amendment.” They lovingly corrected his misunderstanding of the reporter’s question, and quickly attempted to snuff out the uproar over his inability to field a simple question.
Romney’s team opined that the way in which the reporter asked the question was confusing. And, this is a man who has amassed a fortune of a quarter of a billion dollars? And he doesn’t understand a simple question? Let me be “blunt.” If Romney can’t understand a fairly simple question about providing birth control coverage, how does he expect to understand our complicated economic, social, and financial issues?