Mitt the adult
I thought this observation by “Trimegistus” (who sometimes comments here too) at Ace’s gets it just about right:
You know what else I like about Mitt? He’s a goddamned adult. He’s about the only goddamned adult in politics right now. Obama’s a perpetual grad student, Newt is the president of the high-school Young Republicans circa 1986, Santorum is an earnest Notre Dame freshman, and Big Ron’s the world’s oldest high school redneck stoner.
Mitt is an actual grownup with a functional family, he’s had a real job and did it well, he’s not running for President to get revenge on anybody or boost an inflated ego. He’s doing it to fix the goddamned country.
Personally, I don’t think anyone runs primarily to fix the country; I think they run for the ego boost. That’s not to say people don’t want to help the country-but it the primary reason-no. I’ll vote for ABO but Romney doesn’t strike me as more an adult than anyone else running.
He’s a goddamned adult?
A goddamned adult?
Goddamned adult?
goddamn!
Sounds like a little kid throwing a fit.
This hits the target, at at least close to it.
The United States needs two things after 2012:
(1) a president and Congress who can undo the worst excesses of Obama, in particular rescind Obamacare; mitigate the damages done by the pork-laden government-heavy “stimulus” packages passed by the Dems together with Obama; and remove other governmental intrusions put into place under the present administration
and (2) put into place government policies, and a governing style, which will not only remedy the past damage, but also put into practice governance which will create the prosperity this country needs, and get us back on track to being the superpower (politically, militarily, and economically) that we are able to be.
All of the candidates seem intent on doing #1, even though most of the candidates other than Ron Paul have dabbled in some big government views themselves (not just Romney, but Gingrich and Santorum too).
But for goal #2, what is needed is someone with sense of balance, and (for the economy) some business sense. In particular, that person needs knowledge of business principles, and an understanding how to run a large scale organization according to those principles. Although we definitely need someone who can counter the pro-government leftism of the Obama years, what we do <not need is an ideologue on the right. To be conservative is not to be an ideologue.
Regarding Gingrich and Santorum:
To run a country that is so varied, and so complex, requires someone with a more complicated view of things, and a greater sense of subtlety about reality, than someone who reacts to an old JFK speech by saying he wanted to “throw up.”
To successfully remedy the needs of such a large, complicated country, we need someone who can carefully put together policies designed to do that, and to carry those policies through (as Romney did with the 2002 Winter Olympics), not just someone who thinks grandly (i.e. about moon colonies) without a sense of the difficulty involved.
I will vote for the eventual GOP nominee, and their VP, but the best choice is:
Romney-Bachman 2012
I tend to agree with the OP. I always felt that Clinton wanted to be president mainly to get laid and meet cool people. Hillary wanted the power. GWB, like Regan, didn’t want anything but to do a good job as he saw it. I don’t think he cared about the money or meeting Bono or anything like that. McCain probably saw it as a means of settling a few scores. For guys like Dole and Kerry, it was more a career capstone, something they deserved just for being in the Senate for so long. The Obamas want the money, the status, and the adulation, not of the American people per se, but of THEIR people: rich liberals and lefty activists.
Newt wants to be marvelled at. Santorum is on a religious crusade or some kind. Paul probably doesn’t want the job at all, but he enjoys the hell out of running for it, It’s probably the only time anyone pays attention to the crazy things he says.
Mitt, otoh, seems like a special case. He doesn’t care about the money, the chicks, or the celebs. I think he just sees it as a big challenge. Above all else, beyond any particular sense of patriotism or desire to fashion a better world for his grandkids, I think it appeals to his boundless ambition.
Conrad: I agree that Mitt is ambitious, as are most presidential candidates.
But I do not see this run of his as primarily motivated by “boundless ambition.” He is one of the least narcissistic of all the candidates; perhaps the least. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some personal narcissism, of course, but he doesn’t have a lot for a presidential candidate.
I think one of the main reasons he’s running this time, aside from the usual amount of ambition in a very successful man, is because he sees himself as the one person among all the candidates who can turn the country around economically. He really does see himself as a very practical turnaround financial expert, and he thinks that’s what’s needed.
He also is a conservative, although not a very strict one, and he wants to reform some of the worst excesses of the Obama administration. But his primary motive, as best I can tell, is the economic one. I think that’s why the strongest conservatives don’t like him; they think his emphasis is wrong (they also don’t trust him, but that’s another story).
Sometimes, when battling fire, especially forest fires, the firefighters actually start a fire.
Sometimes, it may take a crusade to beat a crusade. Or didn’t the Crusades keep Europe from become Muslim?
Sometimes, not knowing your enemy (or that you have one and apparently Romney doesn’t) leads to disaster.
Is ambition (boundless or otherwise) the same thing as narcissism? Do they necessarily go together? I would think that Mitt could be highly ambitious without being narcissistic.
I agree with you that Romney doesn’t seem narcissistic. And, to be clear, I think that HE thinks he would be a terrific president. Further, I think he may be correct in so thinking. But, I tend to think that what drives him is the desire to accomplish difficult, big, and important things. That he can serve his country, follow in his father’s footsteps, and make a better corld for his grandchildren are all part of the mix, but I think it all starts with the fact he’s so tremendously ambitious. Anyway, just my opinion.
Romney is probably seen by many as not laying in to Obama enough. I’d bet he goes to bed lots of nights praying that Obama’s stupidities stop and thinking about how he could make that happen.
For years, he has experienced first hand how stupid government policies and regulations get in the way of effectively running a business and state governments. Obama has taken this to the pinnacle, and he knows it has to stop.
Conrad: the two (narcissism and ambition) are not the same, but they are often (not always) linked.
The thing is that there’s nothing wrong with ambition (even “boundless” ambition) unless it’s linked too closely with narcissism. Anyone and everyone who runs for president must be ambitious; I just don’t see how it could be otherwise. So if a person mentions Romney as being especially ambitious (or boundlessly ambitious) I assume it’s meant in the more negative, pejorative, “narcissistic” sense. Perhaps that was an invalid assumption on my part. Did you mean that he is more ambitious than other presidential candidates? If not, I’m not sure what the point of mentioning his ambition is.
If you meant, however, that his ambition comes first and foremost—before his interest in the country, and before what he can accomplish with that ambition—I differ. I read Romney as very concerned with the country. And although he’s an ambitious guy he’s not narcissistic, so his top priority is what he could accomplish for the country (especially economically) with that ambition rather than personal gain (not that he would be unhappy with the personal gain—and by “personal gain” I don’t mean wealth; he’s already got plenty of that).
I just read this Tina Korbe post and watched the whole video. It is amazing how one line from Romney, which by the way is also applicable to Newt’s $2.50 promise, seems to be the only thing that affected Korbe.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/07/mitt-romney-its-not-like-the-president-can-precisely-set-the-price-at-the-pump/
Here, expressed by the awesome Winston, excerpted from a speech of Hillsdale’s president, Larry Arnn, is the sentiment that great leaders must know and use something which at other times is called wicked or evil:
“There is requried for the composition of a great commander not only massive common sense and reasoning power, not only imagination but also an element of legerdemain an original and sinister touch which leaves the enemy puzzled as well as beaten.” –Winston Churchill, 1921
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/today-on-power-line-tv-a-few-minutes-with-larry-arnn.php
See at 5:28.
“Only Winston has the deadliness of fight the Germans.”
And what I fear is that the “adultness” here extolled about Romney, is not adultness at all, but a lack of deadliness, a lack of greatness for our hour. I hope Romney has it. I hope he is hiding it. But seriously, how many of even serious Romney supporters suspect that.
How absurd.
Even crazy Ron Paul is an adult by any reasonable definition of the word.
Statements like this show how much the media hype and false characterizations influence how we see these men.
As to their motivations. I think that each of these men deeply believe that the damage done this country by Obama must be reversed and it restored to a course that will ensure its greatness now and for future generations.
Of course the have egos. No one runs for the president without a huge ego. No one runs unless they believe that they can succeed at what is inarguably the most difficult job in the world.
Of them all, and I include Obama in this as well, only Newt really understands the challenge(s) that will face the president and the administration in 2013. I believe he more than any of them understands how critical the next four years are going to be. I base this belief in his real experience with governance at the federal level. The deeply entrenched bureaucracy which resists any effort to reduce it. The various interest groups who pay lip service to small government (or not) and resist any reduction in the support that flows their way.
The odds are we’ll get Romney, and he will win as would any other Republican nominee. I suppose in some way his experience in Mass may make him the second most likely person to understand what is required. The Mass legislature is completely out of touch with reality and has all the same type of entrenched interests on a smaller scale as DC. It is at least as corrupt and until Obama was more openly so.
Romney has the most adult hair.
Trimegistus is voicing a playground argument: “My dad is better than your dad.”
Try again.
So it’s come to this — the greatest requirement for the position of most powerful man in the world is that he be an adult. And there’s only one of them in the field. Welcome to interesting times.
@ Neo:
I don’t consider it a bad thing for a person to be “boundlessly” ambitious. Certainly, I wasn’t using that description as a pejorative in this case.
Perhaps it’s true that all prez candidates are ambitious, but there are degrees. I think Romney is much more ambitious than, say, Bob Dole was. People want to become president for a lot of different reasons and, moreover, some seem to want it more badly than others. I think Romney wants it more badly than most. As I discussed earlier, I don’t think he wants it for his personal pleasure or gain. But I do think a big part of what makes him want to try to win the office and be a great president is that he has an innate hunger for achievement.
HE’S AN ADULT AND I SAY SO, and I’m gonna stick my snobby East Coast nose in the air and sniff twice and get my ruler to spank the children.
If you agree with the “only adult” statement, are you calling Santorum a child? Aren’t you slipping down that slope that Rush fell headlong down?
Triumph, the insult dog says, more for me to poop on.
“And what I fear is that the “adultness” here extolled about Romney, is not adultness at all, but a lack of deadliness, a lack of greatness for our hour. I hope Romney has it. I hope he is hiding it. But seriously, how many of even serious Romney supporters suspect that.”
*I* suspect that Romney is deadly and has killer instinct.
I was an early Perry supporter and got very angry when Romney attacked and oversimplified Perry’s handling of the illegal tuition situation when he was governor of Texas.
After some time, I got over that because I figured that strategy came mostly from his campaign advisers and because it showed his fighting spirit.
His advisers were right…the strategy worked…polls showed it worked even before Perry added more poor debate performances. Romney has withstood the attacks of each front runner contender d’jour and has given as good as he got.
I yearn for him to turn that will to win towards Obama and I think he will when the presidential campaign starts.
I am a Romney supporter because I like his solid personal character and family life and because I think we need someone as president who has his financial and organizational expertise.
I share Trimegistus’s frustration caused by the criticisms of Romney and lack of seeing his positives. I think that’s what caused his “colorful language”.
I also agree with what J. L. said above. He said what I have been thinking much better than I ever could.
Thoughtfully said texexec and here’s a thoughtful rebuttal:
The JL argument is close to the liberal argument that super brilliance is the key. Didn’t work for the wonder boy, Herbert Hoover. It was HH not FDR who created the government programs and policies which prolonged the Great Depression. FDR added and continued them, yes, but the brilliance of HH led him to meddle.
Here’s a better answer, I believe: common sense. Deep appreciation for the moral behaviors that lead to prosperity.
Nuances, complexity, shades of this and that? Not so much. That was Obama’s forte, remember? (And all untrue! His intelligence is in deception and political maneuvering and it is not insignificant.)
But I’m not saying Romney doesn’t have common sense or appreciation for the moral behaviors that lead to prosperity.
What organizational abilities are required by a President? He does not create an organization or organize tasks as much as he staffs his organization. Therefore, what is needed is a person of good judgment of character and ability. I think Romney would do pretty well, better than anybody except, perhaps Santorum. (An earnest Freshman? Not hardly. C’mon. At least a Senior.)
Financial expertise? Maybe, but that could become a trap just like it has to so many others. But, again, Romney appears the best here too and could spot deceptive legislation and would curtail executive meddling.
Give Romney good marks for good judgment on foreign policy too.
What tea party conservatives expect is not a builder, but a destroyer, of government programs and influence.
So . . . there’s some recognition of Romney’s positive points and to be fair, he’s earned my respect just for the steady and continued fight he’s given. What a task it must be to continually campaign!
Now, let’s stop denigrating the candidates more than Obama. Because Romney is likely going to get the nomination and we will all want to team up and fundamentally transform America. And calling candidates, or inferring that candidates, are children, is the same as calling their supporters children.
Curtis said:
“The JL argument is close to the liberal argument that super brilliance is the key.”
Where in my comment did I say anything that resembled that “super brilliance” is the key?
I said business sense, and a sense of how to run a large operation to effect certain goals. And how can that not matter? If you are on an airliner, or a large ship, you want someone who can pilot that vessel, operate its controls, and give the correct commands to bring about what needs to be done.
I mean, if you do not think Romney has those skills, or that another candidate has them more, or if you think those skills are trumped by other skills in the present situation , then okay. But on some level, competence, skill and an ability to run an operation must matter for something.
Actually, upon re-reading Curtis’ last comment, I’m not sure if what he says is all that different from what I said earlier. A few differences maybe.
Yes, super brilliance is a stretch, and the unknown competence of George Washington and his administrative abilities comes to mind in your defense which you pointed to and not the cult like trust one places in an expert or a professional who has knowledge the average person does not.
I set up a straw man and you called me on it. Good point.
By the way, I don’t necessarily think “adult” is 100% complimentary and “not quite grown up” is 100% pejorative. One of the things people don’t like all that much about Romney is that he’s “adult” just about all the time; never really seems to lighten up (although those near and dear to him say he does, in private).
Part of Clinton’s charm (to which many on the right are immune, but a lot of other people are susceptible) was his air of being perpetually boyish, a lovable scamp. Even George Bush had that frat-boy quality that drove people on the left nuts.
The last “adult” president in the sense I’m thinking of it was George H.W. Bush. He was the quintessential “adult.”
Perhaps Romney’s adult air is a result of growing up as a Mormon and as a son of a famous political figure; he was always under view and developed a public persona.
For me, the riddle about Romney [Romney’s Riddle, York Productions, Ed. 1, pp. 204, ISN #448093329, picture] is whether he is passive or active.
Is there a direct object to his understanding?
I read a very long and detailed account of Romney’s position on abortion and it reminded me of the same battle I fought regarding that issue.
There’s been a lot of argument and “fact” and, of course, hate, directed against those of traditional values who base their values on texts rather than “science.” But the science has changed, hasn’t it? And was Oliver Wendall Homes, Jr., vindicated or challenged?
Don’t wanna be against science. Who would be? And why?
But it wasn’t just science, it was logic in the abortion dispute. And Margaret Sanger, well, hey , how about justifying her logic? Kill niggers. This is Planned Parenthood’s beginnings? Kill the niggers? And somehow they, because they are receiving dollars from the same people killing them, agree? Sounds like vulture Capitalism to me.
I love life. I love the small limbs, the first smile, the “I love you, Daddy,” and the “Mom, can I help you,” statements.
I (We) love those. We are not hate. We are love. We are love. We are love. And Love never fails.
I just wish that Mitt, when asked a question about something he doesn’t know the answer to would just simply say “I don’t know, it hasn’t come to my attention until know”.
Instead of saying something he’ll have to backtrack from in a couple of days.
Also, since Mitt’s the responsible family man, he’ll be able to grasp our debt. I stole this from someone, but it simplifies the math:
If federal income and spending where a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt (this year) on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Budget cuts: $385
That was from September 2011, and hasn’t improved. He’ll understand, intellectually, but I don’t think he (or any of them, for that matter) have the political will to make the necessary changes.
I disagree with the characterization of the article. Gingrich is an adult. Very much so.
His problem is that he has a mid-life crisis several times a year.
Always leaving Ron Paul out…. he’s had a “real job” and is the one who has warned about the mess we find ourselves in right now.