Is Mitt Romney More of a Dude Than We Thought?

[Geee]

PJMedia:

You know whom I’m beginning to like, respect and admire? Mitt Romney.

I know! We conservatives aren’t supposed to do that. We’re supposed to look askance at him as one of those hell-bound establishment moderates, a RINO in Reaganesque clothing. We’re supposed to bitch and moan about his lack of vision, his suspect credentials, his refusal to eat the children of illegal aliens for dinner (they are tasty). We’re supposed to complain that he hasn’t gotten specific enough about which federal workers he’s going to guillotine and is therefore not really committed to returning the government to its 1776 levels of spending as God and the founders intended. If we really want to strut our red cred, we’re even supposed to claim there’s no real difference between Romney and Obama — and we’re supposed to do it with a straight face, too.

 

But I’ve been watching the guy operate and I’m beginning to think a lot of that may be — how can I put this politely? — crap.

 

Don’t get me wrong. It’s all good conservative stuff all right. In fact, it’s generally how we roll. As the brilliant Ann Coulter brilliantly pointed out in her brilliant book Demonic, “Most of the time, conservatives can barely tolerate their leaders. Republican presidents are lucky if their own party doesn’t move to impeach them.” She then goes on to prove her point by citing the ceaseless stream of criticism conservatives trained on Ronald Reagan when he was, you know, being the greatest conservative president of, like, ever. (Coulter, I should add, was an early Romney supporter and, as far as I can tell, hasn’t got a moderate cell in her whole stirring cellular makeup.)

 

 

But while conservative Mitt-crit is certainly in keeping with our characters, I’m starting to feel much of it isn’t actually true. For instance, I watched, listened to, and then read the transcript of Romney’s address to the left-wing NAACP last week. I thought it was an excellent speech, clear in its free market approach, as rich in specifics as it needed to be, and courageous in speaking truth to a hostile crowd.

[logicnreason]

If by "Dude", one means a "tough guy", an "exciting politician", a "rousing orator", or a "charismatic leader".....then I beg to add a fourth definition to "dude". One, I hope, will remove this idiotic sobriquet from the English language.

Having watch Rom-knee through the primary season...and somewhat during the failed run of John McLoser, I'm going to add to the definition of "Dude" this truism (as it applies to Rom-knee) ......"beige paint".

 

It fits Rom-knee perfectly.

[Valin]

If by "Dude", one means a "tough guy", an "exciting politician", a "rousing orator", or a "charismatic leader".....then I beg to add a fourth definition to "dude". One, I hope, will remove this idiotic sobriquet from the English language.

Having watch Rom-knee through the primary season...and somewhat during the failed run of John McLoser, I'm going to add to the definition of "Dude" this truism (as it applies to Rom-knee) ......"beige paint".

 

It fits Rom-knee perfectly.

 

 

Two Words...Calvin....Coolidge.

[logicnreason]

If by "Dude", one means a "tough guy", an "exciting politician", a "rousing orator", or a "charismatic leader".....then I beg to add a fourth definition to "dude". One, I hope, will remove this idiotic sobriquet from the English language.

Having watch Rom-knee through the primary season...and somewhat during the failed run of John McLoser, I'm going to add to the definition of "Dude" this truism (as it applies to Rom-knee) ......"beige paint".

 

It fits Rom-knee perfectly.

 

 

Two Words...Calvin....Coolidge.

 

As long as you don't use "dude", I'm "COOL" with it!!

 

Get it?? COOL??? "COOL-idge"??

 

Hahahahahahahaaaaaa!

[Valin]

@logicnreason

 

Here's the thing. Too many people on our side crave excitement tingles down our legs fireworks, well (for betteror worse0 that's not Romney. We have to remember, he was a CEO, and that is his mindset.You don't see a lot of CEO's who are exciting, telegenic people.

[righteousmomma]

You guys are having a fun time so I hate to interject here but...

 

I am of Mitt's generation -older 6 years than he - but perhaps we are the last of the Americans who were raised on the virtues of mom, apple pie, church and America. We tend to be throw backs to an era of thinking in absolutes with healthy doses of realism, common sense and pragmatism. Political correctness and situational ethics and the lofty intellectual idealism of the loopy left were not parts of our innate philosophical makeup. Guess its more a "feeling" for Truth, Honor and Justice and the American Way that cannot be explained adequately even to one's own children.

Unfortunately.

 

Edited to add also that decently,civility and plain good manners were a mandatory part of all our upbringings.

[Valin]

@righteousmomma

 

I'm afraid there is no hope for you...off to the camps!

 

One of the things I believe is going on is we are seeing the end of (as Walter Russell Mead puts it) the end of the Blue Social Model, that we have lived under of the last 100(?) years. There are people (mainly on the Left) who are trying every way they can to keep it going. The question I have about Romney is, does he really understand what is going on? In the primaries IMO there were only two candidates who appeared to have a clue as to what is happening...and one of them had a foreign policy that is quite frankly reality challenged.

[righteousmomma]

I am afeared that you right.

 

Don't forget the John Dewey educational system and the Humanist Manifesto I, II and III and Margaret Mead and Planned Parent hood and on and on.

For a 100 years we have sown a tempest and are now reaping a whirlwind.

[Valin]

@righteousmomma

 

Make no mistake these changes are coming, it is just a question of do we get ahead of the changes and embrace them, and so make it easier, or do we try and keep the old system going.

[pollyannaish]

It seems to me that what we want to focus on is relevance. It's an ugly, hyper-cliched 21st century word, but it will be the driver of the next 30 years or so.

 

Life is becoming on-demand. We are losing a common culture to a mishmash of a million subcultures designed to provide you with exactly what you want when you want it. Everything is right now, with little thought of long term consequences.

 

So our challenge is, how do we present our principles—which apply just as soundly to instant gratification as they do supporting the right thing for the long term—in a way that appeals and is relevant to a new a different way of living?

 

The important thing is that the principles don't change. But too often we confuse past application with the principles itself. This can cause us to be rigid, and render the principle useless.

 

We've been working on this in our family because it is so important to teach our children why these principles apply even still. It's a hard job, but I honestly think we're up to it in this country. We must thoroughly understand the schemata involved.

[Valin]

@pollyannaish

 

 

What do we mean by "a common culture to a mishmash of a million subcultures"? Not that I disagree, just trying to figure out what exactly what this means? Are we talking the popular culture or the political?

We have a job of work to do, to start talking to each other instead of at each other...people on both sides. One of the points of agreement I think I've found is Education & and the system we have today. Over at CGP so many folks on the left really understand that this ain't workin and something has to change.

 

Can I use your reply over at Common Ground Politics?

[Valin]

The Corner: Romney’s Record(s)

Jonah Goldberg

7/18/12

 

While I am amused by the hectoring I’m getting for an editorial (which I didn’t write) that is allegedly too tough on Romney from the same crowd that has been beating on NRO for years because we are too soft on Romney, my biggest concern has less to do with his tax-return records and more to do with his actual record. As I write in my column today (and Michael Tanner in his), I find Romney’s timidity about defending the industry he helped create and the career he has been running on maddening. I’m not sure he should campaign on the glories of outsourcing, as Tanner suggests, but speaking honestly and intelligently about it would be a good start. The guy is rightly running as the grown-up in the race. Sometimes grown-ups need to cut through the BS. Obama’s you-didn’t-create-your-business screw up offers the perfect opportunity for Romney to give a big, serious, speech that re-frames the conversation. As Romney has said — and pretty effectively — in the past, Obama attacks straw men in order to make his case for “transforming America.” If you can convince people that the other side doesn’t believe in roads or firemen, then your pitch for federally imposed social justice is a lot easier to hawk.

 

Romney has already bought in to the argument that he’s the champion of free markets and free people. He’s already said that he sees Obama as moving us to a European-style welfare state. He’s already said that his record in business prepares him to realize his vision. That’s all great with me. But he needs to connect those dots.

 

(Snip)

 

What bothers me — both on the tax-return issue and the Bain/outsourcing issues — is that he’s been running for president for years and yet he seems unprepared to deal with these attacks.

[logicnreason]

@logicnreason

 

Here's the thing. Too many people on our side crave excitement tingles down our legs fireworks, well (for betteror worse0 that's not Romney. We have to remember, he was a CEO, and that is his mindset.You don't see a lot of CEO's who are exciting, telegenic people.

 

1st....don't lump me in with the likes of a chris mathews. I don't get "tingles down my legs" anymore for anyone.

2nd...I my long life I've met and watched CEOs that generate enthusiasm and excitement both in speaking and actions. I am completely unable to quantify your "a lot" amount.

3rd....mr. rom-knee - were he to scream "abandon ship!" on a sinking vessel or "fire!" in the midst of a conflagration, or "follow me!" when leading troops in battle....would not garner the support of but a very very few (ok...to quantify....3 out of 100).

4th....while most of us - like myself - are well beyond the chrissy mathews stage....at the very least we would like to be kept awake for longer than 5 minutes when attempting to listen or follow mr. rom-knee.

 

The right's candidate is extraordinarily fortunate in that he is running against - by far - the largest failure, disgrace, and stain ever to slime the office of president of the us.

 

Yet...even so....the fear is that yet again....even against the likes of the stain and his regime....the right will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Valin]

@logicnreason

 

Here's the thing. Too many people on our side crave excitement tingles down our legs fireworks, well (for betteror worse0 that's not Romney. We have to remember, he was a CEO, and that is his mindset.You don't see a lot of CEO's who are exciting, telegenic people.

 

1st....don't lump me in with the likes of a chris mathews. I don't get "tingles down my legs" anymore for anyone.

 

 

Never!

 

2nd...I my long life I've met and watched CEOs that generate enthusiasm and excitement both in speaking and actions. I am completely unable to quantify your "a lot" amount.

 

My point (poorly made) is Romney talks in CEO. This occured to me after the 08 primaries, when trying to figure out how we got stuck with John McCain arguably one of the least popular nation Republicans (can we say McCain Feingold?). Then I recalled Mitt talking about "The Challenges" facing us....now out onthe factory floor when the boss starts talking about "Challenges facing us" that means longer hours no pay raises, and you're screwed. That is what I mean by speaking CEO.

 

 

The right's candidate is extraordinarily fortunate in that he is running against - by far - the largest failure, disgrace, and stain ever to slime the office of president of the us.

 

Yet...even so....the fear is that yet again....even against the likes of the stain and his regime....the right will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

 

Now this is the kind of thing honorable people on the right can disagree about. The Worst?now I grabt you "The One" is defiantly in the running, but we must admit he's got some serious competition LBJ (can we say Great Society/War on Poverty/planning bombing missions from the White House?) Then there is Jimmy the rabbit slayer Carter (remember MEOW, getting his nuclear policy from his daughter, gas lines...oh and his finest moment throw the Shah not only under the bus but driving back and forth over him.)

 

I should post something like this over on CGP...Who is the worst Democrat president in modern times....

[Valin]

@logicnreason

 

For what it's worth...

 

[logicnreason]

Hi Valin!!

 

I'll take that challenge!

 

"Who is the worst democrat (not "democratic" as the msm talking heads like to say) president of the modern era?"

Easy! The stain.

 

"Who is the worst democrat president in the history of the country?"

Easy! The stain.

 

"Who is the worst president the country has ever had?"

Easy! The stain.

 

I could go on .... but you get my drift!

[pollyannaish]

@pollyannaish

 

 

What do we mean by "a common culture to a mishmash of a million subcultures"? Not that I disagree, just trying to figure out what exactly what this means? Are we talking the popular culture or the political?

We have a job of work to do, to start talking to each other instead of at each other...people on both sides. One of the points of agreement I think I've found is Education & and the system we have today. Over at CGP so many folks on the left really understand that this ain't workin and something has to change.

 

Can I use your reply over at Common Ground Politics?

 

Of course. Good luck with the CGP group on this.

 

As far as the common culture being political or popular culture, I mean both and more.

 

There was a time when American's self-identified much differently.

 

Essentially: American > Region > Heritage > Religion > Political Views > Interests/lifestyle

 

Pop culture, politics, business tended to focus on the largest possible common denominator to reach the largest audience. So you saw national media, arts and politics cater to what were considered American values, then regional differences and so on.

 

Now, we self-define differently: Interest/Lifestyle > Heritage > Political Views > American > Religion > Region

 

The advances in communication (and even our ability to travel long distances quickly) mean that pop culture, politics and business tend to cater directly to Interest/Lifestyle. We tend to communicate much more with people who have similar interests and lifestyle than we do with our neighbors. We get movies that appeal directly to our interests and reflect our lifestyles. Regional identity has largely disappeared, with WalMarts and McDonalds and Starbucks homogenizing almost every town. We view our country through a political lenses before our religious lens, and most importantly, before using the American lens.

 

This is not good or bad. It is simply different. And what it means is that the way we perceive the world around us is at once more, and less, homogenized. We are less likely to be exposed to people who espouse different interests, lifestyles and points of view, but more likely to have a common regional experience. Our definition of what it means to be American can be wildly different from our neighbor's, but we are unlikely to realize that.

 

This has happened partially because technology has changed so dramatically in the last 20 years. Businesses, politicians, religious leaders...everyone has discovered that a bigger audience is not necessarily more effective than crafting the right message for the right audience. The return on investment is so much better it is breathtaking. But the downside is a further fracturing of the common culture and weaker coalitions. And finally, we become isolated by our own interests.

 

One of the specific ways you can see this breakdown is in ethnic communities. Blacks for example, were originally defined by their skin color. But you see that community fracturing to some extent based on interests and values. In inner city black communities, education is not considered sufficiently black. In music, you especially see this breakdown in rap. Often, successful blacks are labeled inauthentic. The same is true for the rift between the more conservative Cuban community, and the LA hispanic community that have completely different lifestyle and interests. Women and the gay communities have similar rifts appearing...all largely based on interests and values.

 

In a lot of ways, this is a positive because it allows people to be less concerned about superficial membership in a group than in ideas. But the transition between one way of organizing a society and another is painful and costly and the process tends to cause widespread anger and disillusionment until we can figure out how to reorganize ourselves effectively.

 

I hope that sufficiently answers your question @Valin. When technology changes, society changes. It did in the industrial revolution, and it is now. I honestly believe that in 20 years, our country will be nearly unrecognizable to the generation who came of age in the 50s.

 

Sadly, some of us are caught in the whirlwind. I hope and pray that people will understand it is not their fault, but simply the natural consequence of change.

[Pepper]

"Is Mitt Romney More of a Dude Than We Thought?"

 

 

Let me answer that question:

 

"Maybe, Maybe Not. But Obama is More of a DIsaster Than We Thought."

 

 

@logicnreason

@Valin

@Rightheousmomma

[Valin]

"Is Mitt Romney More of a Dude Than We Thought?"

 

 

Let me answer that question:

 

"Maybe, Maybe Not. But Obama is More of a DIsaster Than We Thought."

 

 

@logicnreason

@Valin

@Rightheousmomma

 

Speak for yourself....Nothing this guy has done has surprised me in the least. What I find so funny is the hard left doesn't like him because he's to moderate.

[pollyannaish]

@logicnreason

 

Here's the thing. Too many people on our side crave excitement tingles down our legs fireworks, well (for betteror worse0 that's not Romney. We have to remember, he was a CEO, and that is his mindset.You don't see a lot of CEO's who are exciting, telegenic people.

 

1st....don't lump me in with the likes of a chris mathews. I don't get "tingles down my legs" anymore for anyone.

 

 

Never!

 

2nd...I my long life I've met and watched CEOs that generate enthusiasm and excitement both in speaking and actions. I am completely unable to quantify your "a lot" amount.

 

My point (poorly made) is Romney talks in CEO. This occured to me after the 08 primaries, when trying to figure out how we got stuck with John McCain arguably one of the least popular nation Republicans (can we say McCain Feingold?). Then I recalled Mitt talking about "The Challenges" facing us....now out onthe factory floor when the boss starts talking about "Challenges facing us" that means longer hours no pay raises, and you're screwed. That is what I mean by speaking CEO.

 

 

The right's candidate is extraordinarily fortunate in that he is running against - by far - the largest failure, disgrace, and stain ever to slime the office of president of the us.

 

Yet...even so....the fear is that yet again....even against the likes of the stain and his regime....the right will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

 

Now this is the kind of thing honorable people on the right can disagree about. The Worst?now I grabt you "The One" is defiantly in the running, but we must admit he's got some serious competition LBJ (can we say Great Society/War on Poverty/planning bombing missions from the White House?) Then there is Jimmy the rabbit slayer Carter (remember MEOW, getting his nuclear policy from his daughter, gas lines...oh and his finest moment throw the Shah not only under the bus but driving back and forth over him.)

 

I should post something like this over on CGP...Who is the worst Democrat president in modern times....

 

I think that's the point. "Worst" totally depends on the criteria. I'm still trying to figure out if Obama is the worst in terms of incompetence or philosophy or personal character. If he wins all three, then he wins.

[Pepper]

@pollyannaish

 

Forget worst - Obama's ideology and what has been ushered in with him through the Left, and the current factions created by them is the most destructive force this Nation has had to withstand since the War Between The States.

[pollyannaish]

@pollyannaish

 

Forget worst - Obama's ideology and what has been ushered in with him through the Left, and the current factions created by them is the most destructive force this Nation has had to withstand since the War Between The States.

 

I completely agree. The other was simply an intellectual exercise to help me be more effective with liberals. Of which I know a lot.

 

Edited to add: Wait. I know a lot of liberals. I'm not sure I know a lot of how to be effective with them. Just making sure that was clear @Pepper.

[Valin]

@pollyannaish

 

What is this character thing you speak of?

[pollyannaish]

@pollyannaish

 

What is this character thing you speak of?

 

[righteousmomma]

He wins all three - philosophy (ideology), character and incompetence.

I have agreed with Rush from the beginning in that we wanted him to fail in his goal and intention to make us into some third rate socialistic state.