Who is the real Romney?
For four years now, Republicans have been demonizing Barack Obama for his alleged “otherness”—trashing him as a less-than-real American pushing “anti-colonial,” socialist, and possibly Islamist ideas gleaned from a rogue’s gallery of subversive influences led by his Kenyan father, Saul Alinsky, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And yet Romney is in some ways more exotic and more removed from “real America” than Obama ever was, his gleaming white camouflage notwithstanding. Romney is white, all right, but he’s a white shadow. He can come across like an android who’s been computer-generated to be the perfect genial candidate. When forced to interact with actual people, he tries hard, but his small talk famously takes the form of guessing a voter’s age or nationality (usually incorrectly) or offering a greeting of “Congratulations!” for no particular reason. Richard Nixon was epically awkward too, but he could pass (in Tom Wicker’s phrase) as “one of us.” Unlike Nixon’s craggy face, or, for that matter, Gingrich’s, Romney’s does not look lived in. His eyes don’t show the mileage of a veteran fighter’s journey through triumphs and hard knocks—the profile that Americans prefer to immaculate perfection in a leader during tough times. Even at Mitt’s most human, he resembles George Hamilton without the self-deprecating humor or the perma-tan…
We don’t know who Romney is for the simple reason that he never reveals who he is. Even when he is not lying about his history—whether purporting to have been “a hunter pretty much all my life” (in 2007) or to being a denizen of “the real streets of America” (in 2012)—he is incredibly secretive about almost everything that makes him tick. He has been in hiding throughout his stints in both the private and public sectors. While his career-long refusal to release his tax returns was damaging in itself, it resonated even more so as a proxy for all the other secrets he has kept and still keeps…
For all the encyclopedic detail its authors amassed, and all the sources they mined, their subject remains impenetrable. “A wall. A shell. A mask,” they write at the outset, listing the terms used by many who “have known or worked with Romney” and view him as “a man who sometimes seems to be looking not into your eyes but past them.” Former business and political colleagues are in agreement that he has scant interest in mingling with people in even casual social interactions (in a hallway, for instance) and displays “little desire to know who people are.” He so “rarely went out with the guys in any social venue” that one business associate dubbed him the Tin Man for “his inability to bond.” During his one term as governor of Massachusetts, Romney was inaccessible to legislators, with ropes and elevator settings often restricting access to his suite of offices. He was notorious, one lawmaker explained, for having “no idea what our names were—none.” A longtime Republican, after watching Romney’s vacuous, failed senatorial campaign against Teddy Kennedy in 1994, came to the early conclusion that Mitt’s “main cause appeared to be himself.” This was borne out in 2006, when Romney spent more than 200 days out of Massachusetts ginning up a presidential run rather than attending to his duties as the state’s chief executive.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Frank Rich analyzing a Republican. No thanks.
bluealice on February 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Frank Rich. Who cares.
Paul-Cincy on February 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Pardon me? Frank Rich? Really?
Flange on February 4, 2012 at 8:52 PM
It was creepy to read Frank Rich, but the article is pretty revealing and questioning for more.
Schadenfreude on February 4, 2012 at 8:52 PM
I was just looking at Rich’s column a few minutes ago. I saw a link to it at a blog.
Vanity Fair has this one up: The Meaning of Mitt
Their column is adapted from the same book that Rich is summarizing in his, The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.
INC on February 4, 2012 at 8:54 PM
As much as I don’t care for Frank Rich, it’s hard to argue with this.
Just Sayin on February 4, 2012 at 8:55 PM
No one knows and hardly anyone cares. 27% of those who do are on HA.
Schadenfreude on February 4, 2012 at 8:56 PM
Those two are both with the Boston Globe. Amazon has these author bios:
INC on February 4, 2012 at 8:57 PM
I don’t think there is a “real Romney.”
cynccook on February 4, 2012 at 8:57 PM
At any given moment he is whomever and whatever he thinks will be most advantageous for himelf.
flyfisher on February 4, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Very interesting. Frank Rich is cool if he reinforces your feelings. Awsome.
bluealice on February 4, 2012 at 8:58 PM
The book just came out. I predict it will be excerpted ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
INC on February 4, 2012 at 8:58 PM
kind of silly to be afraid of looking at the facts about Romney….
one thing is accurate in this piece is that mitt really has no operational management experience…he is mere a corporate finance guy
and what about his history re discrimination against blacks by the Mormon church…..we need to know before he gets any nomination
and what about the medicaid fraud?
georgealbert on February 4, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Vanity Fair:
The MSM meme begins.
INC on February 4, 2012 at 9:02 PM
The day I listen to Rich tell me about republicans is the day I put a bullet into my head. No thanks.
Thomas More on February 4, 2012 at 9:04 PM
I never said that Frank Rich is “cool.” But I am willing to evaluate an argument based on its merits rather than on who is making it. Rich happens to be right on this occasion.
Just Sayin on February 4, 2012 at 9:05 PM
If you don’t like Frank Rich:
Notice his last paragraph and my comments.
Rich is referring to a book by two men from The Boston Globe. That’s what will cause Romney some problems. Not Frank Rich.
The Vanity Fair article is different than Rich’s column. It’s adapted from the book.
INC on February 4, 2012 at 9:09 PM
Yep. So, bluealice, argue with Frank Rich here. Tell us why we should vote for Romney other than because the alternative is Obama. Tell us who the real Romneyn is.
ddrintn on February 4, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Actually I would hope that religion stays completely out of it. If not, I’d hammer Rev Wright and the exact role of Islam in Obama’s upbringing constantly.
ddrintn on February 4, 2012 at 9:14 PM
Exactly. I’d love for morons like Frank Rich to open that can of worms.
fed-nad on February 4, 2012 at 9:36 PM
I don’t like Mitt either, but who cares what Frank Rich thinks? And how did one of his articles find itself in the HotAir headlines?
Lawdawg86 on February 4, 2012 at 9:41 PM
I’m Batman.
John the Libertarian on February 4, 2012 at 10:01 PM