How soon we forget.

After less than four years of having a deeply reflective, intellectually gifted and emotionally moving communicator as Commander-in-Chief, in one calamitous gaffe-filled day, Mitt Romney managed to bring back a level of international embarrassment this nation hasn’t experienced since the days of “Dubya.”  Forget the fact that good ol’ Mitt apparently lacks the basic home training it takes to instinctively know not to insult your host — at least not while you’re still in their house.  And never mind the litany of mishaps that preceded this international spectacle: the proudly stated proclivity for contributing to the unemployment rate; the apparent confusion between living, breathing, human beings and entities that employ the masses, while garnering tremendous amounts of wealth for the few; the long list of other head-scratching moments like those psychedelic musings on the “perfect height” of trees or the inexplicable rationalization that somehow made it OK to strap a dog to the roof of a car as if it were some K-9 model of the latest, greatest family Christmas tree.  The sheer volume and wacky nature of these moments would be thoroughly amusing if they weren’t indicative of a broader, deeper flaw. One for which we are all still paying the price.

One thing is clear:  No matter how much he wants to be, or how hard he tries to be, Romney is no natural-born political leader.  Now is that a disqualifier for the highest office in the land?  Of course not.  In fact, some would say it’s a preferable attribute.  Better to have someone real.  Someone authentic.  Someone who really gets my struggles and the challenges my family faces. But wait a minute, that doesn’t describe Romney, the wealthy son of a governor, either.

Still, wealth and privilege is not synonymous with a lack of empathy, the absence of a sense of social responsibility, or a missing proclivity toward the greater good (think Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Gates, Oprah!).  But wait a minute — it seems Romney’s almost exclusive charitable cause is his own church.

Barring natural talent, or obvious interest in serving the public in any broad-based capacity, the true disqualifier, in my eyes, is good old-fashioned laziness.  You need to be willing to put in the work if you want to be the president of the United States.  Once the gaffes are all but forgotten, two highly predictable thorns will remain in the side of the Romney campaign: years of unreleased and therefore highly suspicious tax returns and the collateral damage caused by Bain Capital.  The Bain fiasco has already cost him one election, his unsuccessful Senate campaign, and was a predictable vulnerability in this one.  Why not be better prepared to address it this time around?

The tax issue, on the other hand, with proper planning could have been avoided.  It’s just common sense.  Someone who has been actively running for president since 2006 should have, at least for that period of time, gotten his fiscal house in order.

Perhaps this gross lack of forward thinking and preparedness could be excused if there were some evidence of time well spent toward other worthy endeavors, like, I don’t know, maybe a detailed prescription for economic growth.  But, no, don’t look to Romney for such insight.  Despite all his criticisms of President Obama’s policy prescriptions, the average voter is still left to ask WWMD (What Would Mitt Do)?

This clear case of political and policy negligence leaves one to wonder why he is running at all.  Is it because it’s the one shiny object all his millions can’t buy and, therefore, it’s all the more appealing?  Or perhaps he has some daddy dearest desire to accomplish something his father never did.   Unfortunately for him, unlike his father, he has no bold ideas, no convictions he’s unwilling to compromise to placate the outliers in his party, and, ultimately it seems, no true talent or authentic calling for public service at all.

Do we really need someone else in office just because his daddy did it? Or in Romney’s case attempted to?

I seem to recall we tried that before.

It didn’t turn out too well.

Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter
  • secret6

    Well, it you’re going to bash the POTUS for ‘not having OUR best interests at heart,’ then you need to hold the mirror up to the entire community as well. For example, why is it that 70% of our children are gwoing up in households without a father. Why with a spending power of nearly $1 trillion dollars we have more cars, expensive sneakers, fake hair, and other such excesses that our HBCU’s are on te verge of closing because GOVERNMENT support is about to end; not to mention why with all this money WE’RE CONSUMING more than WE’RE PRODUCING. The POTUS cannot create laws that will make us stop producing children with children with people, male or female, who are just plain irresponsible. He cannot create a bill that will force black folks to stop spending money on what we want then running to the government begging for what we need (food, housing, taking care of HBCU’s, etc.). ANd more than anything, the POTUS cannot force US to decide to take control of our own communities by holding one another accountable for producing children that cannot be taken care of properly, not taking an active role in the education of our children (everybody cannot be working when these PTA and school board meetings are taking place), and for not being more fiscally responsible. Romney’s business was successful, but that success was limited to people like him: rich and clueless and with no idea of what it feels like to be told that for the sake of the continued financial prosperity of HIS peers, a much needed job will be outsourced to another country. As far as Romney watching his father run a state, he wasn’t watching everything because if he had he wouldn’t be so reluctant to reveal more than two recent years of tax returns. Not so transparent is he? And in case you’ve forgotten, I’m sure it took a lot more that the ‘ability to sway people with words’ to take out Osama Bin Laden. Oh, but according to the one you believe can run a country, it wasn’t that big of a deal.

  • lol

    these are the intellectual topics we would love to read more of on here!

    thank you!

  • Lady P

    What perplexes my mind most about Romney choice as a presidential candidate is clearly his inability to relate to the (American) people, lack of diplomatic and international skills. Obviously, his social skills are not up to par. He is in a foreign country demonstrating disrespect for the love of another’s country. AS a candidate for the POTUS, he or she should already be well aware the sensitivity of great foreign relations. His social skills are not reflecting a “being preparedness” readiness which says to me, “how much do you care?” Romney has had so many fallacies in my opinion that I have been led to believe he is merely a “candidate of diversion”.

    Taking into consideration Romney as a businessman, he is accustomed to operating with people of his likeness. No more than the same argument of President Obama lacking the skills to become CIC as a great community organizer should be the same for Romney. If one stated that President Obama lacked the skills at the time to become POTUS due to his political background and community organizational skills; I think it is safe to say Romney is a lesser candidate. In addition, it was a battle for President Obama to prove that he could tackle foreign policies. He has proven he is capable and also has placed the right person in charge of foreign affairs.

    The humanitarian piece: We know Romney’s viewpoint pertaining to the Obama healthcare plan. Romney’s background as he reflects doesn’t allot him any sympathy for the poor man. I’m not a candidate for having others do for you. As the POTUS, I thought one of the characteristics was to possess a spirit of being a humanitarian. I have NOT witness that quality as of yet. WE all are required (tithes) to give to our church. Education reform, improvements for financial aid/student loans, small business initiatives, and home loan/auto industry crisis to name a few great improvements from the Obama administration reflects attempting to lead the country in right direction for all. These are several reasons why Mitt doesn’t matter to me. Will he attempt to carry out those plans if needed? I continue to hear “spending, spending, and spending”, the low unemployment rates, and the economic deficit which was already in shams. I do believe within another four years, the POTUS will elevate the country back to a better stance.

    I personally don’t have faith in Romney to do that neither should President Obama lift every poor American out of poverty. We have to help ourselves, but us a POTUS it is their job’s responsibility to make the country better for EVERY citizen. Wonder what Mitt will do next. .?!?