October 9th, 2012
By Johnny Tremaine -- I woke up this morning with the scariest thought I have had in a long time. It suddenly occurred to me that -
compared to Romney -- George W. Bush actually seemed intelligent, considered, and -- yes -- trustworthy. I still don't feel that way when comparing Romney to Dick Cheney. Cheney was a lot like Romney. Truth and facts meant nothing to Cheney. What he said and what the media reported were both just tools to put his opinions and positions in effect -- in an effort to win your point and to push the country to do what was advantageous for him and his cronies. Concerns about the truth, etc., etc. -- were just the idealistic lamentations of the not ready-for-prime-time players. In that regard, Romney is more like Dick Cheney than anyone else I can think of. Harmless on the outside -- dangerous and destructive in the White House.
The thing that is worrisome about Mitt Romney is that every once in a while you get the feeling that he doesn't give a damn about anything
except winning the Presidency -- and he'll worry about all the rest once he gets in there. Even worse, you get the feeling that he is going to be an empty suit President that doesn't trouble his sweet little head about foreign policy and all that stuff. The drooling neo-cons left over from the Bush/Cheney years will take care of all the foreign affairs, the new wars -- and the projection of empire for him. They'll just tell him what they are doing in his name -- and he will bluster and posture and play President and play the role -- similar to Bush in the first term.
He's inexperienced, unsure of himself, and reckless and careless about foreign affairs because that is the fundamental nature of his personality. That's why the constant knock on Romney from every one that has meant him is that they do not like him. He doesn't listen very well, he's not very considered, he's not tactful, and in the end he thinks its all just play acting and doing whatever it takes to win.
It is hard to imagine that he would be a worse President than George Bush -- but I actually think he could. I still think to this day that Bush had some things he really believed in -- and I think he was trying to be as good a President -- with his limited ability -- as he could -- within the context of the crowd around him and the ideologues that he felt he must answer to -- oh, and the limitations that Karl Rove's maniacal, demoniacal tactics and advice imposed upon him.
I'm a little shocked that there has been such a change in the polls -- presumably as a result of the debate. It's a little like you see a drunk peeing on his car tires in the parking lot on your way to your car after the bar closes -- and you are suddenly moved to grab a mega-phone
and declare to the world that you nominate the drunk for "stud of the year" -- gulp, gulp -- based on what you have just observed. I didn't see anything very noteworthy -- other than Romney was acting like a college boy frat rat who had had one too many to drink -- and Obama was acting like a "Rush Week" pledge still trying to make up his mind if he wanted to be in the fraternity his dad had demanded he join.
If that day had been the only day of the Presidential campaign -- based on what I saw that night -- I would have checked "None of the Above"
on my ballot November 6. Fortunately, it was not the only day -- and I refuse to believe that one debate on one night of the campaign absolutely wiped out the previous two years of the political campaign and replaced all the impressions and judgements about the candidates that the American people had made during those two years.
On a final note: I think the hysterical screaming and crying of the cable pundits in the aftermath of the debate had more to do with
forming the impression of who won and who lost in the minds of the American people. If the commentary after the debate had been a little more like the point by point analysis they do after something like the "state of the union" speech" -- it would have been helpful to people to sort out and analyze the substance of the performance of each candidate. Regrettably, for the media, it was a little bit more like election night -- and there seemed to be a vested interest in winning the race to call the winner before all the other networks and the pundits seemed to jump to quick judgement as to the winner -- and offer impassioned and dramatic rationalizations for declaring an early winner -- and the American people were the ones who really lost out in that process. But "news" is a competitive business -- and ratings are everything! God bless us all!