Way back in March, I wrote an op-ed for the New York Daily News about Mitt Romney and the likelihood that his campaign would be damaged by cowardice. In context, this came right after Romney refused to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his attacks on Sandra Fluke.
In fact, I drew a parallel at the time -- in the 1988 race, following the Iran-Contra affair, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was dogged by what was then called the "wimp factor." The perception at the time was that the Republican just wasn't tough enough for the job, and Romney's problem is similar, and arguably worse.
The observation is catching on. Business Week's Josh Green had an item this month on Romney's "wimp factor," and the cover story of the new issue of Newsweek, using a nearly identical headline from 1987, ponders Romney and "the wimp factor."
Newsweek's piece, written by the estimable Michael Tomasky, stresses that the one thing Romney "never does" is "man up, double down, take his lumps." It's this inherent weakness, Tomasky argues, that explains Romney's remarkable flip-flops on practically every issue under the sun -- the candidate lacks the courage to stick to his convictions.
Indeed, there's an unmistakable pattern that underscores Tomasky's thesis -- as we've discussed before, Romney's afraid to offend conservatives; he's afraid to push back against extremist rhetoric; he's afraid of the religious right; and he's afraid of Limbaugh.
In terms of campaign strategy, Romney's afraid to release his tax returns because he thinks Democrats might be mean to him, and he's also afraid to disclose his bundlers because he worries sunlight may scare his wealthy benefactors away.
On a purely substantive note, the GOP candidate is also clearly afraid take a firm position on key issues -- he'll give us some general platitudes on taxes, immigration, spending priorities, and international affairs, but if voters want specifics, they're expected to vote for him first and get details later.
Leadership requires some modicum of courage -- a character trait the Republican presidential hopeful appears to lack. Here's hoping the Newsweek cover sparks a larger conversation.
Leave a Comment:
"Here's hoping the Newsweek cover sparks a larger conversation."
It's doubtful, but hope always springs eternal. For a conversation to ensue that would mean an "examination and real thought" regarding the issues - that's not likely to come from any of the GOTP fringe! These are the same people that dislike learning & education, refuse to believe "climate change" really is happening, and fail to live in the real world. The only thing that the GOTP do agree on is that anyone other than the current "occupier" of the White House will do!
It's not that Mittens lacks the "courage of his convictions" - it's just that his "convictions" are to making money by any means necessary - and his vulture capital experience at Bain is exhibit A - and that's not something that even many of those on the right would be willing to vote for!
A vote against Mittens and his Bain theology on America, is a vote for working Americans!
Is rolling an established Axelrod snowball down a hill really a larger conversation? Isn't it really the amplification of an established narrative- a way to tie a firehose of campaign information for the electorate into an easily digestible summation?
... and so on and so forth. The stories for the main stream press can almost write themselves now. I'm not against narratives- in fact I think they are at the core of the art of politics. However, it is a distortion to call this a "larger conversation". Sure it is larger because narratives yield a big picture. But is there really an opportunity for unique voices to tell a different tale? No. Fidelity to one crisp narrative is the ideal, and this makes it less of a conversation and more of a chant, and the song sung on the Day of the Locusts. It is most like the activity in the middle ages of minstrels traveling from town to town repeating a told story over an over again.
Not that chanting is an inherently bad thing. Let's not delude ourselves that it is a conversation though.
Mitt has convictions? Jeez, you learn something new every day.
I believe that the reason that Mr. Romney's speeches seem to be short on detailed plans for how he will run the government if he is elected, and rather more full of supposed reasons why Mr. Obama is a "failed President", is because he's following the First Rule of effective persuasion: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. Just ask Mr. Frank Luntz about the importance of a targeted message.
The Tea Party near-majority in the Republican Party kept hoping, during their recent primaries, for "anyone but Mitt", be it Governor Perry, Representative Bachmann, or Newt Gingrich, to name just three. But, they got Mr. Romney anyway.
So, the only way that their side of the GOP can bring themselves to vote for former Governor Romney, is to just ignore what he says and to tell themselves that they're not nreally voting FOR him; they're really voting AGAINST President Obama.
Therefore, knowing that his listeners have this mindset, former Governor Romney stresses "reasons" why President Obama is a failed President, more than he outlines his own plans for the future. It's not really a deficit of couraage, as much as it is an appeal to those who just want our President "outta here", and who believe that, after that, events will just happen by themselves. Anyway, they may be thinking, a lot of plans means a lot of more government, and more government means more taxes, so the less plans and details, the better.
Is it possible that he never outlines specific plans because he lacks confidence in his ability to get it done? Or, are those who just need a hand to hold a pen, unsure of exactly what they want in return for their genorousity.
It's becomming increasingly difficult to find anything within this man that could be considered Presidential. I wonder if he ever has second thoughts.
Messerly's on the money (
no pun intendedyes, I meant it), and it might explain some of the media's reluctance, to probe his positions (sic) furhter: It would so easily become a chant, and feed into the right-wing mantra that they look bad because the media favors liberals.TeddyBear has good insights too, but I disagree with hm in one respect: Appealling to those who'll vote for him while holding ther noses is a lack of courage. He doesn't stand for anything other than his ego's need to hold the office, and lacks the courage to take any stand.
When have you ever seen a puppet with inner strength or Character?
All depends on what character has his hand up the puppets @ss! Wonder who's hand is up Mitt's @ss? And could it fit with Mitt's head already in there?
Actually I see him as a string puppet or marionette. They pull the strings to make him dance.
Hmm.tickle me Romney?
Paul
Pinocchio at least attained inner strength and character. That's how he became a real little boy. Romney OTOH I don't see him becoming a real little boy anytime soon.
I'm sure that fundagelical Christians are counting on RobMe being a "wimp" and easy for them to manipulate. They almost certainly underestimate the hold that his church will have on him.
But Maria could Romney stay upright if his nose grew with every lie he tells?
That's what the strings are for Paul ;-)
"Mitt lacks the courage to stick to his convictions."
Because he doesn't have any- just vague platitudes, written in "quiet rooms".
I disagree that he has no convictions; it's just that the ones he does have are pretty well anathema to most of the rest of us. He clearly believes in the strict hierarchy of races, ethnicities and most of all, of wealth (he showed this in his donor speech in Israel) -- plus he clearly will never violate any tenet of Mormonism.
That's it. It's the length, breadth and depth of the man. Not presidential material.
After Romney's performance in the UK and Israel, I think we need to start talking about his "Doofus factor," as well.
I'm calling it the Ugly American World Tour. We need T-shirts
Except that "The Ugly American" was created for handsome Marlon Brando to be accused wrongly and ultimately vindicated, as a successful attempt to whitewash over the much greater truth of Graham Greene's book and the movie "The Quiet American", portrayed by actual war hero Audie Murphy as the CIA guy, and their use of CX plastic explosives in Viet Nam in 50's (as it was also afterwards in real life in the Buddhist Temple bombing) and engineering the blame onto one's targeted enemy group. (first, the communists, later, the Diem regime).
The Solution:
The Oil Companies buy the Car Companies. The Oil Companies give you any large vehicle for $1.00. You are responsible for buying the gasoline, ethanol/gasoline mixture, methane, diesel, or other fuel that is priced high and taxed appropriately.
The consumer wins by getting a large vehicle for little or no charge, (like a Medicare "free" Mobility electric chair, for little or no charge according to the commercials).
The oil companies win by selling a lot of fuel and lubrication products.
The Government wins because everyone is happy.
We already do this with printers. The printer is cheap cheap. It’s the cartridges that dig in deep.
Willard can't "man up" because he isn't a man. He's a tool for the corporations and the rich. He's not going to be able to shake his saber at the world like Dubya did because thanks to Dubya, those two wars in the mid-east has shown the world that like puppies when we want something, our bark is much bigger than our bite. It's why he can't tell anyone what he's going to do if he should get elected, he doesn't know and won't until after he gets elected. That's when the corporations will tell him what to do.
Phenner highlights what I consider to be the most significant disqualification for Romney as a presidential candidate. We have no confirmation as to who would be actively leading our country.
i certainly don't mean to defend willard (his deceitful draft dodging will always stick in my throat), but nobody's unfailingly heroic. the best one can hope is not to dishonor himself. an example very similar to what willard did (or failed to do) was the incident in the early 50s when the infamous senator mccarthy questioned the patriotism of george c. marshall. eisenhower said not a word in defense of the man who made him.
Yeah, but that was Eisenhower doing it once. And then he very quietly worked the Senate and very soon after that, Senator McCarthy had the rug pulled out from under him. There's not a lot of awareness of Eisenhower's role in the disemboweling of McCarthy, but his hand held the knife. (how's that for mixed metaphors? :-))
Willard, on the other hand, does it all the time on everything. That's a biiiiiig difference.
TCinLA . . . I'm beginning to think that Obama is taking a page from Ike's book in his approach to some of the world's hot spots. Instead of blundering ahead with much sound and fury, he seems to work subtly, behind the scenes. It was largely true of Libya, though our presence was a little more obvious there.
I wonder if that's not what's going on in Syria. Assad was in total control; now he isn't. It may take longer and be less showy. But, in the end, the people he doesn't want in power seem, conveniently, to end up out of power.
@mpguy Re: #7.2
I total agree. Finesse instead of Blunder
Lips ButtBuss (whatever)As I recall, as all heck was breaking loose in Libya, there were quite a few people wondering what we were waiting for, and a lot of criticism. The administration was very very cautious and quiet.
Then we found out that there was a whole boat-load (and I mean an actual boat) of American citizens and others who were sitting ducks in the Tripoli harbor. They were stuck due to storms.
We also had a lot of US Embassy people waiting to be airlifted to safety.
Once those people made it to safety, then things started happening.
I am certain that there is a lot of things happening - and this is as it should be.
Mitt must believe he is a 'Teflon man' but those of us who have used Teflon, knows it wears out and stuff starts to stick. Maybe Mitt's cook could clue him in.
Maybe he needs to reapply the Pam.
But, hey! He sounds very tough on Iran and China!
But isn't that what Sheldon is paying him $100 million dollars? To go to war with Iran? He's just doing what he is paid to do.
He sounded pretty tough on Great Britain, too. LMAO
I think Mitt Romney is not a wimp, but he makes an excellent poodle for Bain Capital, the Religious Right and Netanyahu.
He knows where he gets butter for his bread: Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, Moral Majority, the Tea Party. You name it, he's beholden to it.
What's amazing about them finally noticing this is that according to yesterday's LA Times, Romney leads Obama on taxes, the economy and jobs. No matter how much of this information is out there, the ability of the Average American to engage in willing suspension of disbelief (example: all those focus groups that say Romney's plans can't be That Bad when they're presented with them, despite the fact they are That Bad). Just remember that Mencken had it right when he said "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
The American public simply doesn't have the capacity to think. This is the result of 30+ years of right-wing propaganda programming convincing the American Idiot of the awfulness of government and the awesomeness of unfettered markets and dumbed down Adam Smith controlled by the heroic American capitalist management type making decisions from lists of options compiled for them.
One thing I admired about 2008 candidate Obama is that he led the party through his candidacy. I certainly used to be a lot more wild-eyed and emotional when it comes to politics - but listening to Obama talk about issues in a way that made solid sense convinced me to calm down, not fly off the handle over everything, and to first look at the bigger picture. Romney is sorely lacking in this kind of ability. He doesn't lead his party, he chases it. Romney behaves like he's a candidate afraid of his own party.
If he IS afraid of his own party, it could be the first appropriate reaction he's had since the campaigning began.
Willard talks tough when it doesn't count.
Obama walks the walk.
There's a difference between a coward and a snake oil salesman. Mitt RoMoney is the latter. And he's coming to a voting booth near you!!!!
2 hours troll free, this article must take a lot of planning to twist around a talking point.
In case there is any question about being a puppet...
Mitt is the textbook bully. Really aggressive, until he's confronted. This is why the "teenage haircut incident" and the "dog on the roof incident" are meaningful.
Romney redirects his insecurities by bulling those he can bully: those who are less powerful, and against whom he can operate within the safety of a crowd, as he did when he organized his buddies to pin down the kid he didn't like. There is safety in numbers. As president, Romney can attack people through others.
If he were just a rich hedge fund guy, this wouldn't matter. As president, he would be in a position to torment millions of poor middle and lower class folks in thousands of subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Meanwhile, he will kowtow to the wealthy and powerful interests, because he fears them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want a cringing, yellow-bellied coward as leader of the free world, Mitt is your guy.
mpguy, you are telling the truth about this Mitt guy. I have never read it better written. The American people will be so everlastingly sorry if he is elected to the presidency. I have known others like him during my life and they have unerringly and always caused untold pain and suffering to people while pursuing their selfish agenda. Examples of such suffering cry out from history. We all need to be keenly aware when we begin observing someone who is not behaving well now and has not behaved well in the past, because in all likelihood, they will not behave well in the future. We really do need to think more about this Mitt guy cutting the hair of that young man because the young man was different than Mitt and his gang, and we really do need to think more about the dog on the roof of this Mitt guy's car just going on down the road. Those who believe he did nothing wrong will vote for him. Anything he might say or do to become elected, beyond these two examples of his core behavior can not be sufficient. In my opinion, he has small hope of becoming the man he would have us believe he would become.
Romney - best candidate money can buy!
Better candidates can't be bought!
Good one, Maphi!
Move over Sponge Bob...I think Sponge Mitt has taken all your oxygen for awhile...at least until November!
Romney makes me realize one major thing - I'm happy I voted for Obama in 08 and will vote for him again in 12!! Thank you Romney!!
I abhor Mitt Romney and would be perfectly happy if they just kept him in Israel or Japan or wherever he's swanning around today.
The only trouble with the comparison to H.W. is... H.W. WON THE ELECTION. :(
Read more >> Options >>
This Jerk can never man up. he is a bully and bullies are cowards. And that's what this Jerk is a "cowardly Bully"
Regardless of party, Mitt Romney is simply a horrid Presidential candidate. In these last 100 days, as voters begin to focus on who the "not Obama" is (which is really what they are saying when they name Romney in a poll) they will realize that even a President they don't always agree with is far better than a man you can't trust, who won't reveal even his own plans for the country should he be elected, seems to be hiding his tax returns for some bizarre reason, just made a fool of himself on the national stage, etc. The list goes on and on. I can't imagine swing voters being able to vote for Romney with any confidence in November.
Republican voters, I am sorry if you hate Obama. YOUR PARTY selected this man as your Presidential candidate, not Democrats. You will only have yourself to blame the morning after Obama is re-elected. So please don't scream and get angry at anyone but the person you see in the mirror.
Mr.Mitt Ronmey,if we only could envision his everyday life and his behavior around his camp,in the context of his political and business life,I can assure you that he is not or act like a wimp.He is a savvy shark,of political and financial rough waters.Who knows no mercy.He is a team member of a political faction whose their only goal is power and make more money,and if they have to walk over your dead body,they will,many times over.Do not,I repeat,do not get fooled by his dorky-goofy demeanor because he will rip your intestines out if he has to,and with a smile in his face.He is an actor (a bad one and disliked by his peers) who "now playing near you" acts like he is "The model good citizen whom is filled with care for others" No! He is not.He is a sleek liar,a professional deciever,an "smart ass"conman that is trying to portray many things he is not.Among them the idea that he is a wimp.Oh yeah! Make no mistakes,this GOP we are dealing this time around are no wimps,on the contrary they are thirsty for blood and they look like a bunch of mean vampires to me.