1. Let’s face it, Mitt Romney has a personality problem--he really doesn’t have one. His wife, Ann, has been brought in to “warm up” his image.
what eye thynk: In an interview a few days before the Republican National Convention, she spoke with correspondent Chris Wallace and described how Mitt had ironed his own shirt just that morning. “I noticed he was doing laundry last night”. (My husband occasionally does laundry too, but I don’t necessarily feel that announcing that to the general public earns warm and fuzzy points.)
During her speech at the RNC on Tuesday night, she spoke to female voters telling them that “You can trust Mitt”. (Trust him to do what? To make sure I pay more in taxes so he can pay less? To take away my right to make my own health choices?) “No one will care more.“ (About who--the rich? ‘Cause he doesn’t even appear to be aware that I exist let alone “care” about me.) And notice, that, while these statements were enthusiastically cheered by the Republican faithful, Ann Romney offered no details on why I should trust him or how he was going to show he cares. Platitudes without facts do not make me feel warm and fuzzy.
She went on to say his wealth is his own doing, “no hand me down”. In an interview earlier this year, Mr. Romney said “I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad.” Well, either you did or you didn’t. You would think, as husband and wife, they might have gotten their facts straight on this. (Once again, the warm and fuzzy thing eludes me here.)
Earlier in the campaign, when asked about Mitt’s refusal to release more of their tax returns, and in an effort to bring this whole trust-Mitt-he-is-the-best thing into the public discussion she said “You should really look at where Mitt has led his life and where he’s been financing”. Well, yes, Ann, we’d love to do that. We’d love to know, is he investing in America or just fleecing it? But, see, your husband won’t let us. Secrecy for no apparent reason doesn’t get my warm and fuzzy going and it doesn't make me trust the man; it just makes me wonder what he is hiding.
2. Mitt himself has tried to explain his apparent inability to connect with voters on a personal level.
what eye thynk: Earlier this week, when asked about this issue, he answered “Remember that Popeye line, ‘I am what I am and that’s all what I am’”. Apparently not even Mitt can explain the void where his personality should be.
According to a story in the New York Times this morning, in 2008 Mr. Romney told friends that, looking back on his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination, he felt he had come off as a caricature he did not recognize: emotionally uncaring, intellectually inauthentic and ideologically malleable.
Well, with all the issue hopping he has done since then, at least he can say that nothing has changed there.
Showing posts with label etch a sketch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label etch a sketch. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Romney Always Follows the Rules--Except When He Doesn't
On Sunday, the New York Times included a lengthy article on how Mitt Romney has been formed by his Mormon faith. It explained how Mr. Romney always follows his church's tenets to the letter in both his religious and personal life and how, as a church official, he was always willing to help show other church members how to do the same.
what eye thynk: This is a ho-hum article for the most part, except for one section that made me wonder about his willingness to bend church beliefs when it comes to his own family and how he would apply that same moral ambiguity to the Presidency.
When Mr. Romney was a church bishop in the Boston area, a couple came to him for guidance. They had tried and were unable to have a child of their own and wanted to adopt. Their problem was that they both worked and felt they needed both incomes to provide a comfortable life for a family. At that time, the Mormon church did not allow adoptions if the mother worked outside the home. (They have since relaxed this rule.) Mr. Romney, exhibiting an admirable degree of stick-to-the-rules helpfulness, went through the couple's budget showing them where they could cut expenses that would allow the wife to quit her job thus earning the church's approval for adoption. (Unless, of course, you are a woman who wants a career AND a family--but that's another subject.)
Skip ahead to a more contemporary example of Mr. Romney and church rules. Currently, the Mormon church "strongly discourages" surrogacy; however, his son Tagg Romney and his wife have not only chosen to ignore the Mormon church tenet against surrogacy, they have chosen to ignore it twice. They have one son born through surrogacy in 2010 and on May 4 welcomed twin boys born through the same surrogate mother. Mitt's pride in his growing tribe of grandchildren doesn't seem to find any fault with the obvious double standard and, despite church rules that say using surrogacy can result in punishment, none has ever been applied to Tagg and his family.
I realize that Tagg is not running for President and his family choices are his own. Actually, I'm happy for him if he is getting the family he wants. It just bothers me that the Romney who IS running for President would be so strict when applying rules to one family situation while ignoring similar rule breaking within his own.
This is a personal, and telling, example of Mitt Romney's Etch-a-Sketch character. His ability to change sides on any political issue when that change facilitates his campaign is just another representation of moral ambiguity...and morals shouldn't be ambiguous. The way he can so easily be moved from one position on any topic to a completely different position on the same topic in order to gain the desired result--whether that result be grandchildren or the Presidency--doesn't read like probity to me. It reads like entitlement.
what eye thynk: This is a ho-hum article for the most part, except for one section that made me wonder about his willingness to bend church beliefs when it comes to his own family and how he would apply that same moral ambiguity to the Presidency.
When Mr. Romney was a church bishop in the Boston area, a couple came to him for guidance. They had tried and were unable to have a child of their own and wanted to adopt. Their problem was that they both worked and felt they needed both incomes to provide a comfortable life for a family. At that time, the Mormon church did not allow adoptions if the mother worked outside the home. (They have since relaxed this rule.) Mr. Romney, exhibiting an admirable degree of stick-to-the-rules helpfulness, went through the couple's budget showing them where they could cut expenses that would allow the wife to quit her job thus earning the church's approval for adoption. (Unless, of course, you are a woman who wants a career AND a family--but that's another subject.)
Skip ahead to a more contemporary example of Mr. Romney and church rules. Currently, the Mormon church "strongly discourages" surrogacy; however, his son Tagg Romney and his wife have not only chosen to ignore the Mormon church tenet against surrogacy, they have chosen to ignore it twice. They have one son born through surrogacy in 2010 and on May 4 welcomed twin boys born through the same surrogate mother. Mitt's pride in his growing tribe of grandchildren doesn't seem to find any fault with the obvious double standard and, despite church rules that say using surrogacy can result in punishment, none has ever been applied to Tagg and his family.
I realize that Tagg is not running for President and his family choices are his own. Actually, I'm happy for him if he is getting the family he wants. It just bothers me that the Romney who IS running for President would be so strict when applying rules to one family situation while ignoring similar rule breaking within his own.
This is a personal, and telling, example of Mitt Romney's Etch-a-Sketch character. His ability to change sides on any political issue when that change facilitates his campaign is just another representation of moral ambiguity...and morals shouldn't be ambiguous. The way he can so easily be moved from one position on any topic to a completely different position on the same topic in order to gain the desired result--whether that result be grandchildren or the Presidency--doesn't read like probity to me. It reads like entitlement.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Revisionist History Can Be Sketchy
Campaigning in Maryland this week, Mr. Romney said, "I keep hearing the President say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression. No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush".
what eye thynk: What? I'm having trouble with the chronology here. For months we've been hearing Romney blame the recession on President Obama. So the economy that Romney has been telling us Obama broke was fixed by George W. before Obama broke it? Just trying to follow the logic in that makes my brain bleed.
Earlier this week, when asked how Mr. Romney's campaign might change were he to win the nomination, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom compared the two campaigns this way: "Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again".
Looking at Mr. Romney's comments in Maryland, it appears that he is already mastering the art of history by Etch A Sketch.
Our country's arrival at the brink of economic collapse happened on George W's watch and was caused by his administration's policies of deregulation and tax cutting while paying for a war started under false pretenses. No amount of shake-erase-rewrite action can change those facts.
The Republican ego has become so engorged that there is no longer room for the truth. They would have us believe that if only they had been left in charge unemployment would be zero, gasoline would be $2.50 a gallon and the entire Middle East would be embracing Western style democracy.
And now Mr. Romney wants us to believe that George W. didn't really ravage our economy, he saved it. This is revisionist history at the hands of an Etch A Sketch master.
what eye thynk: What? I'm having trouble with the chronology here. For months we've been hearing Romney blame the recession on President Obama. So the economy that Romney has been telling us Obama broke was fixed by George W. before Obama broke it? Just trying to follow the logic in that makes my brain bleed.
Earlier this week, when asked how Mr. Romney's campaign might change were he to win the nomination, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom compared the two campaigns this way: "Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again".
Looking at Mr. Romney's comments in Maryland, it appears that he is already mastering the art of history by Etch A Sketch.
Our country's arrival at the brink of economic collapse happened on George W's watch and was caused by his administration's policies of deregulation and tax cutting while paying for a war started under false pretenses. No amount of shake-erase-rewrite action can change those facts.
The Republican ego has become so engorged that there is no longer room for the truth. They would have us believe that if only they had been left in charge unemployment would be zero, gasoline would be $2.50 a gallon and the entire Middle East would be embracing Western style democracy.
And now Mr. Romney wants us to believe that George W. didn't really ravage our economy, he saved it. This is revisionist history at the hands of an Etch A Sketch master.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)