Saturday I had the chance to hear Mitt Romney speak without notes or teleprompter. He took questions from the audience.
I realized how low my standards had become for politicians. Romney was amazing. He gave complete answers, used historical references for his points from memory, and showed a sense of humor. He made arguments that contained sound bites without being reduced to simple mindedness.
In short, he was brilliant that day.
Romney projected none of the lack of authenticity that sometimes he projected during his last presidential run. Perhaps that is because he stuck to the economy and foreign policy where he is very knowledgeable.
Most impressive: I saw him schlepping his own luggage to the car, but pausing to spend a moment with an older lady who was calling after him. I have seen a good many celebrities, but few that were so polite.
My fifteen year old son was dazzled by intellect combined with a passion for the nation. He said, “Dad, I felt hopeful and like doing something, charging, acting.” We also realized how low our expectations of our leaders intellects have become. There were no hesitations in Romney, no weird quotations, no anger.
He was sunny and smart. Maybe you don’t like Romney or trust him. O.K. But watch him speak and realize that we don’t have to settle for second-rate intellect in a candidate. Romney is whip-smart and he has chosen to associate with the conservative team. If not Romney, then let’s find someone at least that smart, cheerful, and gentlemanly.
December 6th, 2009 | 9:39 pm | #1
But watch him speak and realize that we don’t have to settle for second-rate intellect in a candidate.
The Palinistas aren’t going to like that crack.
Romney is whip-smart and he has chosen to associate with the conservative team.
True, at the age of 60 he decided to associate himself as a conservative—after realizing that repeating his claim of being to the left of Ted Kennedy wasn’t going to get him elected outside of MA.
If not Romney, then let’s find someone at least that smart, cheerful, and gentlemanly.
Agreed. But let’s also find someone who is constant in their convictions and willing to stand on the side of justice and will do the right thing, even when it isn’t politically convenient.
December 6th, 2009 | 9:51 pm | #2
Yes. Joe: we can both agree that we want a candidate who is:
1. smart.
2. conservative.
3. consistent.
Who do you have in mind?
And why, oh why, dear Joe would you associate my “second-rate” crack with Palin? Isn’t that assuming a lot?
Chummily,
John Mark
December 6th, 2009 | 10:11 pm | #3
Who do you have in mind?
Sadly, I can’t think of anyone who (a) has those qualities, (b) will be running in 2012, and (c) can get elected.
Isn’t that assuming a lot?
Well, you could have no one at all in mind. But I assumed you were referring to someone since the last GOP primary candidate that couldn’t be considered smart was . . . honestly, I can’t think of one. Palin is the closest to one that fits that bill, and it’s more that she’s intellectually incurious than dumb. (For the record, I was originally excited about Palin and defended her longer than I should have. Sadly, many of her critics were right that she wasn’t quite ready for primetime.)
December 6th, 2009 | 10:11 pm | #4
As a 2007 graduate of Hillsdale College, I still can’t get the bad taste out of my mouth that Romney left after his ill-directed and poorly conceived campaign speech hidden behind what was supposed to have been my graduation speech. It left a horrible impression, and he’s had no chance to defend his “turnaround” on certain issues. At this point, I should think we’d all be a little more careful to look beyond someone’s words. Consistent message doesn’t equal consistency so much as it does good PR. He’s still got a long way to go to undo the damage he did that day, for me anyway.
December 7th, 2009 | 1:38 am | #5
Could be . . . worth looking at closely. Put not your trust in princes . . . always good advice.
December 7th, 2009 | 1:38 am | #6
Joe . . .
I wish you had better news.
December 7th, 2009 | 9:32 am | #7
I love Romney’s rhetoric. But when I look at how he actually governed when he had the chance, he makes me really nervous. Not sure what to think about him.
If not Romney, then let’s find someone at least that smart, cheerful, and gentlemanly.
Amen to that. Maybe I should announce my candidacy …. :)
December 7th, 2009 | 9:43 am | #8
I’m a little confused. What is the stated purpose of this blog? I’ll surf around and see if I can find it.
December 7th, 2009 | 12:51 pm | #9
Burley:
Let me save you a bit of time, perhaps.
The purpose of the blog is whatever the owners, i.e., the authors, deem it to be. They are not constrained by artificial laws or limits.
If you find something not to your liking, better luck next time, eh?
December 8th, 2009 | 7:41 am | #10
My personal conviction is that I don’t want to see the highest office in the land filled by someone who participates in mormonism.
I believe Mike Huckabee would be the best choice. Maybe Palin would be on the ticket with him which would give her some time to get ready.
December 9th, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #11
Thanks, Mike.
December 9th, 2009 | 9:19 pm | #12
“smart, cheerful, and gentlemanly.”
If you wanted to summarize what Barack Obama and Bill Clinton had that John McCain and George Bush were less successful in demonstrating, this would be a good list.
December 20th, 2009 | 9:32 pm | #13
Well, I like Rommey too but I think seom christians could not seperate his religion and politcal ability. A person could be off theology, believe in Mormomism and still be an effective leader.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact