Apart from their party label, not many candidates have much in common but the desire to get into or get back into Congress. Very few of them can answer the simple question: Why?
Pushing that little problem aside, we could fairly ask what has a candidate been doing in these past two or four years to make himself or herself a more capable, understanding, far-sighted, knowledgeable person who actually would bring benefits to governing.
When we focus on that question, we see the immediate tie between Mitt Romney at the top of his ticket and Linda McMahon, somewhere in the middle.
And there many be other outriders who have lived the interregnum the same way.
Mitt wants to be president because he wants to be president. It’s his turn, says his wife, Ann. She also says, ‘Trust him, he’ll be wonderful, he will not fail.”
Linda’s husband, the redoubtable Vince, hasn’t been seen or heard in these parts and therefore hasn’t been able to raise the loyalty flag or even indicate his wife’s talents, such as they may be.
But one fact seems obvious and damaging to them both. Ambition is swell if it is accompanied by a real need to pitch in and help the country recover from its doldrums. But neither Mitt nor Linda, in the past four years, has done anything to strengthen his or her resume, something that would increase their value to us as Americans.
Four years is a long time to be running for office. Mitt has been running even longer. But neither he nor Linda has made any effort to improve their knowledge, their breadth of experience, their value to us all. And FOUR YEARS is long enough, folks, to have LEARNED something!
Rather than study (a degree could have been garnered during this time), or traveled throughout the world NOT necessarily meeting leaders but simply experiencing life in other climes; rather than working on a favorite charitable cause or perhaps even learning a new language; rather than studying history in terms of economics or warfare; rather than absorbing history’s lessons of the past…. both Mitt and Linda just kept on campaigning. In Linda McMahon’s case, she simply went underground after her last defeat. Presumably she was rebuilding her war chest but what she wasn’t doing was taking part in any public debate or action that would indicate she cared about the”forty-seven” per cent or their welfare.
Mitt went to Davos and Aspen and was surrounded by acolytes. Linda wasn’t invited.
There was no reason to imagine including her in panels discussing world problems because clearly she wasn’t interested in them.
So what do we now have? One man, albeit one who looks as though he would be the perfect type to become president, but who refuses to tell us anything about his vision (if such there really is) for the future: no details, no theories, no graphs or charts, no honesty. And one woman who is as unchanged as an inner-city-scape (with a suburban patina) without the will to improve itself. There is no better reason for voting for her now than there was four years ago.
Mitt truly is leading from behind…reacting to events rather than fostering them.
Linda is taking advantage of the ugliness in our country which we gather suits her to a T.
Neither she nor Romney is anything but actually part of that forty-seven per cent dependent on the government to make their lives better. Both have used what government has allowed to increase their fortunes, run their businesses, evade taxes legally. And while at the Republican convention, we heard a few stories about a kinder, gentler Romney, we have no such evidence regarding McMahon in these four years. She simply has nothing else to do with her time and money but run for an office that is, by rights, far far above her own station. She HAS focused her campaign somewhat differently. Rather than being the tough CEO who made tough decisions as she did in 2008, now she’s campaigning as a loving grandmother who cares for all children and is suddenly a campaigner for the rights of women, a stance she had never before taken.
Both candidate are opportunists. Both are astonishingly lazy. Both are loathe to share with the public information the public needs to make informed decisions. Opposite Mitt’s “I’m a nice guy” effort, we have McMahon’s “He’s not a nice guy” mantra re Chris Murphy.
Romney has a small chance at squeaking through.
McMahon should be taken outside the city limits and left there for another four years dreaming and scheming and making even more money with which she’s not going to do anything purposeful.
We’ll see her again, unchanged, in 2016.