Posted on 01/11/2008 7:28:39 AM PST by colorcountry
BOSTON - Several months ago, W. Mitt Romney said presciently that he had only himself to fear.
Despite his millions, the picture-perfect family and an overpowering campaign organization, Romney becomes his own worst nightmare every time he dishes half-truths and exaggerations and dissembles about his religious and political views, pointlessly trying to persuade the so-called Christian Right that he is one of them.
If it continues, he may not win his party's nomination. The irony, which his halting marches through Iowa and New Hampshire underscored is this: No Republican candidate is better qualified, organized or energized to take on the Democrats.
Substantive general election debates between Romney and either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are exactly what the American electorate wants and needs. It could happen if Romney would stop with the intellectual pandering that only suggests he may have lost track of the consistent personal convictions he once had, ones necessary to be the world's reliable "go to" guy.
Unlike his inspirational father, whose candidacy imploded over a single, truthfully fervent, if ill-considered broadside ("When I came back from Vietnam, I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get."), Mitt's protracted scuttling of his own campaign is excruciating and bone-headed.
Romney mangled his father's stellar civil rights legacy by exaggerating George's relationship with Martin Luther King. Instead of apologizing, he set his flacks to parsing and spinning.
Romney's inability to empathize with common folk is longstanding. As an LDS stake president, he was kind, though often impatient and patronizing, with members who didn't measure up. Once, he joked that a church-sponsored social group for older single adults he championed was a club for "quitters and losers."
Instead of the noblesse oblige expected of one so well-born, recall his bumbling as he praised a New Hampshire baker by evoking memories of a similar bakery "near my father's summer home." Or, the unintentional one-upping he gave the proud father of a daughter at Michigan State: "My brother's on the board of trustees."
When Mitt finally threw his hat in the political ring nearly 15 years ago, friends assumed the acorn had fallen near the stalwart oak. The son would be smart, kind and perhaps slightly cagier than the old man. The son would talk proudly about his principled dad who recognized that Martin Luther King stood for the right. He would rhapsodize about the '64 GOP convention in San Francisco when his proud father rose indignantly and stalked out, a visually arresting slap at the heavy-handed soldiers of the radical right.
One would expect that no son-of-George would ever allow one of the more guileless members of his campaign team to take the fall for its misbegotten attempt to involve LDS Church leaders in its efforts to secure support from BYU-affiliated business school groups. But Mitt did.
One would think no heir-to-George would pin blame on his eldest son for the illegal immigrants working in the family garden. But Mitt did. No loyal husband would gracelessly roll his own wife under the bus ("Her contributions are for her and not for me. Her positions are not terrible [sic] relevant to my campaign.") to dodge accountability for his own previous support for Planned Parenthood.
Would anyone think less of Romney if, instead, he had responded with indignation? He might have said, but didn't: "No member of my team should discuss fundraising schemes with an apostle of my church." Or, "I should have canned that lawn service myself long ago." Or, "Planned Parenthood funds many programs worth supporting that have nothing to do with abortion."
The question of the moment is this: Have his recent limited successes in Iowa and New Hampshire given the tin man new heart and fresh courage? At long last, will the moderate independent thinker who was an early supporter of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition that promoted fiscally sound and socially responsible public policies, the real Mitt Romney, finally stand-up?
---
* RB SCOTT is a founding editor of People magazine and writer for Life magazines. He has followed Mitt Romney's political career since 1993.
The rest of the time, he is the GOP’s worst enemy.
Ping
The rest of the time, he is the GOP’s worst enemy.
Romney the jerk, laid out for the world to see.
Look at these lines:
One would expect that no son-of-George would ever allow one of the more guileless members of his campaign team to take the fall for its misbegotten attempt to involve LDS Church leaders in its efforts to secure support from BYU-affiliated business school groups. But Mitt did.
One would think no heir-to-George would pin blame on his eldest son for the illegal immigrants working in the family garden. But Mitt did. No loyal husband would gracelessly roll his own wife under the bus ("Her contributions are for her and not for me. Her positions are not terrible [sic] relevant to my campaign.") to dodge accountability for his own previous support for Planned Parenthood.
bkmk
What I noted:
>Once, he joked that a church-sponsored social group for older single adults he championed was a club for “quitters and losers.”
If that is verified, wow.
>one-upping he gave the proud father of a daughter at Michigan State
Michigan State’s football team is abysmal. Only thing good about it is regularly beating Notre Dame. This can be forgiven.
The tag list at the end is mostly gibberish. It looks like sour grapes, and doesn’t add much of any substance. Mostly, though, it seems like a really solid viewpoint that Mitt doesn’t get it.
That being said, I am suspect of some of Romney's MA governor record compared to how he is campaigning. So I still think he is full of $hit.
But its still better than any democrat.
" When Mitt finally threw his hat in the political ring nearly 15 years ago, friends assumed the acorn had fallen near the stalwart oak."
It did.
Cordially,
Oh, so Huckabee is perfect. Ha! You make me laugh so hard I almost peeed my pants.
Oh, sure....BARACK: Mr. Romney an apostle of your church made the following statement. Do you agree with it? “However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1915 – 1985): - Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 114
Mitt can still win the nomination. I would love to see a Romney/Thompson ticket.
What does this have to do with Huckster?
Sorry, guys, if you support Romney, you are asking to be cut off at the knees at 12:01 PM on 1/20/09.
* RB SCOTT is a founding editor of People magazine
(eyes rolling)
So, you’re saying he’s a nut.
229 posted on 12/29/2007 4:30:22 PM CST by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Address the man’s opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.