Hi Connor,

I agree with you that Romney is as slick as they come. However, I am not convince that he is a bad guy, or even very dishonest. I just think he is so caught up in the attempt to become president that he is willing to do what all of the other politicians do, evade questions. I can also see the wisdom in not answering that question directly. The question was a set up. It presupposes that the responder does in fact dislike something about the nation, and it does so with a negative connotation. Any wise politician will know that anything they say to respond to this question would be used against them and would likely be quoted out of context. A better question would be “What issue, challenge or problem is most important in this country”? Or “Can you name something about this nation that you would work to change if elected president”? My questions may not be perfect, but you get the point.

With all that said, I agree with you that politicians, including Mitt, need to start being open and honest when talking with the people. We can all see right through the fluffy answers like, “Golly Gee, I can’t think of anything that needs improvement here. The land is great, the people are great. Everything’s great.” I think this is exactly why Ron Paul seems to be grabbing people’s attention. I wasn’t a Ron Paul supporter before the debates, but once I heard him talk I was sold. Everyone I have asked to listen to him has told me the same thing, “This guy is telling the truth. He might be wrong, but he is being completely honest about what he believes”.

Amen!

What’s the matter, Governor? Are you afraid you might actually say something that’s “real”?

White-washing. Diplomatic double talk. Non-answer-answers; most of us do it from time to time. Politicians just more than usual. Though it’s a lamentable tendency, it’s an understandable one. In todays world of pundits, blogs, sound bites, and Youtube; it’s easy to see why public figures have a paranoid fear of gaffe and scandal. The trouble is, of course, that you cant please everybody, and if you try, you’ll probably end up pleasing nobody. “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time…”

Does this make Romney a malicious liar, or merely an average politician?

It’s easy to recognize such a “nicey-nice” strategy as disingenuous, and I think it leaves him open to the tactic of “sell, sell, sell….”, “always stay on message”, and “attack, attack, attack….”

What’s worse, is that it’s not so much that politicians have to fear from John Q. Everyman. Hopefully, most people with common sense are willing to forgive an off color quip or two; as long as their representatives have the Integrity and work ethic to get their job done. It’s Other politicians they are afraid of, wolves in sheep’s clothing who are interested in blowing up every little fault, exploiting every weakness, without reason or decency.

But, Connor, are you responding to to the obvious insincerity of Gov. Romney’s response, or to his lack of conversation skills in general?

Seems like most politicians nowadays have totally abandoned the fine art of real conversation and debate, in favor of the school of soulless business advertising. Skills of Interaction, communication, listening, thoughtful question and inquiry, and free flow of ideas are not nearly as important as building up and selling an image or brand.

As to Gov. Romney in particular, such a response doesn’t reflect well on his listening skills. He seems to have missed or ignored the implied question:”If there is something you dislike about America, what do you think you can do to improve it?”

And what’s all this business about Ronald Reagan? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, how much I detest it when politicians start talking about history (or at least, comparing themselves to historical figures….)

I guess have to ask, what’s more important; mere words, or understanding what the motivation is, and where the incentives lie?

It’s true that it is fairly obvious that he dodged the question, but I think it was still a pretty smart response. If he would have answered the question directly and said something like “I don’t like X”, he would have just alienated people who do like X or don’t mind X so much. I think there is a reason so many politicians use the same tactics, because they are effective. It may be laudable to always answer questions directly and completely, but it won’t get you elected. Other politicians could easily twist your words and use it against you. Many people in the media are looking for just that in order to cause controversy and create news, and politicians don’t want to be on the losing end of that controversy.

All politicians are creations of the media. They become the puppets of the corporations and combinations that control their strings. We thus see that Romney is also one of these media creations run by his puppeteers.

Mitt Romney, like most other political aspirants tends to not realize just how savy the electorate really are now that we are part of the actual debate via the internet and our new-found ability to have real influence on the important matters pertaining to our daily lives. In recent times he has sought to make a case for being in favor of opposing the current immigration legislation while at the same time he utilizes a link on his web site En Espanol. If that is not political pandering and disingenuineness, I do not know what is. I must admit to having once been quite enamored with the possibility of a Priesthood holder in the “Oval Office,” but am now convinced that Mitt, in spite of his being a “fellow traveler” in the Church, does not understand what the Constitution is really all about, and does not attain to the highest level of true American patriotism necessary for me to support him. He is also much to comfortable with terms such as “Globalism” which causes me great consternation given the fact that I am unable to support anyone who says anything even remotely similar to the term “New World Order.”

He forgot to mention at the end of his statement that he really does believe in “world peace”, too.

…at the same time he utilizes a link on his web site En Espanol. If that is not political pandering and disingenuineness, I do not know what is.

Uhhh…it’s called reaching the widest audience possible. Last time I checked, a lot of folks who vote prefer Spanish language media. This doesn’t mean they don’t speak English. Or that they won’t vote once (hopefully) ballots are only available in English.

Doug

I generally do not respond to those who begin their commentary with grunts such as Uhhh or duh as if they believe they are speaking to someone who is mentally deficient, but I’ll make an exception this time.

I speak German, but I did not notice a link to Deutsch.

I should think he would only be trying to reach the “widest audience possible” consisting of legal United States citizens residing within the contguous 48 states, Alaska and Hawii.

If your heart is not in America even when you are traveling in another country, you are not an American.

During the last time you checked, what exactly was the criteria utilized in conducting your poll of English speaking folks who voted and prefer Spanish language media?

Did you mean (hopefully) they will vote or (hopefully) they will only vote once? Did you discern as to whether or not their identification was leagal giving them the Constitutional right to cast a vote?

Otherwise, thank you for the astute commentary.

[...] post by Connor Boyack gave me the inspiration for the following. Let me be very clear before I write this; I find that I [...]

Connor, I bought a Mitt Romney bumper sticker…but it came in a 3-pack. I’ll give you one of my extra’s when you’re back!

I don’t trust Mitt. I don’t want another smooth talking politician in the White House. I want someone who will defend liberty and constitutional principles. Ron Paul is that man!!!

I actually like Mitt Romney a lot, but I won’t vote for him. He seems to be a genuinely nice, family-oriented, religous man. I think it’s cool his five sons have a blog supporting him. I don’t even blast him for his ‘political’ answers, and I actually think he’s doing a laudable job representing the Church in general. But when he hired the same neo-cons that advise George Bush and then not only bought their foreign policy but made it the center plank of his candiadacy, he lost a lot of my trust. When I researched it further and compared it with what happened to his Dad’s presidential campaign I became genuinely concerned about Mitt’s ambitions versus his thoughtfulness and sincerity. I blogged about it here: http://tinyurl.com/3a65d3