Mitt Romney, Serene and Credible?
by Ernie McCray on Oct. 30, 2012, under Uncategorized
Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/6668178199/
After the last presidential debate the San Diego Union-Tribune waxed romantically about how serene Mitt Romney appeared to be and all I could think was: What kind of HD do they have that can make a man who looked like he had chugged some unsweetened lemon juice, seem to be serene? Wearing an expression on your face that’s like a cross between a smile and a grin – a “smin” perhaps – is not a picture of serenity. A bit too Cheshire Cat for me.
They followed that up by citing a poll that showed that 60 out of a 100 voters thought Romney had looked credible, aka pretty good, on national security and I wondered “Should these people be voting?” Which one of his approaches to national security have they latched on to? His: “Hey, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if I hear you even say ‘Nuclear’ I’m going to go upside your head!” attitude? Or his (pointing to Obama) “What he just said” stance? Is the man now in love with the president? We got something latent going on here?
Then, in a manner that was in no way serene, the U-T started chest bumping and fist pumping in behalf of their boy with “Bring it on — and bring change to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!”
Change? Change from what? Change from one “trickle down” con game to another? Change back to the way every ex-president has looked in our history? Mitt even looks a little like Thomas Jefferson. What kind of change is that?
They must have been trying to appeal to the “undecided” among us, people who would, I guess, find it troublesome trying to determine whether or not they should light their heater on a 30 below zero degrees day. Undecided about what? What would one of the candidates have to do for these people to earn an X next to his name? Fix a parking ticket? Scratch their back? Pick up the check at Mickey D’s?
It seems logical to me that we have no choice, in this moment in time, other than to consider which one of these guys will, when all is said and done, make the world a little better for everyone. And Mitt Romney, serene or otherwise, doesn’t qualify to be the guy.
I mean Romney is stuck on marriage as only between a man and a woman and Obama stands tall for marriage equality. That takes us a bit closer to a loving respectful society, the way America should be.
Neither Obama or Romney has spoken to us about our poor, our people who live in the streets, the people who still fear losing their homes, the biggest symbol of the “American Dream,” in any deep thoughtful personal way. It’s been in political language about the economy and the “need for jobs” and a bunch of other blah-blah-blah. But Obama has tasted what it’s like to not have much and he’s walked the streets in the inner city of Chicago, helping people cope and feel they belong. That, I would hope, would give him the edge in this campaign.
I simply don’t trust Mitt Romney. When I heard him say “Latin America is a fine opportunity for us” I thought, oh, oh, cuidado, mis amigos. The man will put on a brown face and talk to you like you’re his favorite people in the human race and whatever you thought you had would be gone. Recuerdas Bain? There were all kinds of opportunities in that flurry of capitalistic insensitivity. For Romney and his homies. Verdad?
Plus who knows what’s going to come out of the man’s mind and mouth at any given time as he changes directions like an elusive running back juking the defense after busting through the line and everything is so easy for him. Oh, he’s going to stifle the “rising tide of chaos” and get the Middle East to “reject terrorists” like all it takes is a little American ingenuity with a touch of flashy sabre twirling and trash talking with a big stick – he does like obsolete weapons. And, voila, Iran is nuclear and bad guy free, causing no problems, just as real as one can sail from Syria out to the open sea which reminds me that I’d like my president to have a little more knowledge of geography when it comes to relating to other countries.
And the man wants to charge Iran with war crimes because of their history of genocide — while a man who lied and sent our kids off to “make a difference” in a horrible “Shock and Awe” Show walks free? Have there been many war crimes more egregious than that unmerciful spree?
He spoke of peace, about promoting it throughout the world, but he voiced such thoughts as though it was an afterthought, like a sentence filler, just words to win a moment in a debate, like: “The mantle of leadership for promoting the principles of peace has fallen to America. We didn’t ask for it. But it’s an honor that we have it.”
It is, indeed, an honor and that mantle has been in America’s court for many years now, carried out in various ways, from the use of arms way too many times to the use of diplomacy, not enough times, and at this juncture in the journey towards bringing about peace, with the world teetering dangerously economically, and warriors always at the ready, I don’t see Mitt Romney as the man to take us the next step of the way. No way. He doesn’t seem serene or credible enough to be a president for all the people, definitely not the 47 percent whom he sees as deadbeats.
There it is. Barack Obama is the only choice that makes sense to me. Anybody with me?
