Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:58:37 PM
The question of whether or not Mitt Romney is a leader, or simply a manager, as Senator John McCain asserts, came up again last night, along with the single most important foreign policy issue of our time--the definition of "timetables."
The latter I've addressed in a previous blog (see below or go here).
I missed the last ABC debate where McCain and Mike Huckabee and others piled on Mitt Romney, though I did see the worst of it, thanks to Youtube. I mention this, because I didn't get to see what I understand was McCain at his surliest.
In last night's debate, however, the surly McCain was back. I must say, though, based on what I've heard about him, he was still fairly calm.
There were the digs, though. Jobs being lost when Romney was a venture capitalist. McCain going after patriotism while Romney was going after profit. McCain giving Romney a "Just say no" moment (am I attributing this wrong, but wasn't it Nancy Reagan who originally said that? Talk about your irony, with her in the audience and them all in Ronald Reagan's library).
Folks, the discussion shouldn't be whether or not Romney is a leader vs. a manager. The question is, is McCain a leader vs. a bully.
Did you see the New York Times article with their attempt and defining why the Republican candidates all seem to deplore Romney? It said, in a rather funny way, that McCain and his friends were the cool guys that would beat up kids like Romney and his friends during recess.
Okay, so even liberal papers can hit upon the truth now and then, even if they can't come out and say it for what it is (doesn't look good if you also plan to endorse the guy).
McCain is a bully. Maybe he's been principled and a straight talker, but that wasn't working in this campaign. He wasn't beating Romney on substance. Now, with some of the George W. Bush campaign folks behind him, he's resorted to what he lost to back in 2000--distortions and misinterpretations. That in and of itself does not constitute a bully, but "Governor, your answer should have been no," when describing what Romney should have told Good Morning, America back in April regarding timetables, is nothing more and nothing less than being a bully.
I'm telling you, anyone who likes McCain because of this assertiveness and decisiveness, has never been on the other end of it. A leader might correct you, try to point out what's wrong with this and that, but McCain has to get in the extra jab, the extra poke with the fork. He can't just leave it be. He has to get in the last word, and he has to make you know he's superior.
Now, I'm not feeling sorry for Romney. Romney's not been a victim of bullies all his life. No way. And, when this is all said and done, Romney will have his wife, his sons, his millions, and the admiration of many who know him and love him to go back to, and if has to come to this, a pretty intriguing bid for presidency in four years should McCain or Obama/Hillary prove to be what we all seem to be saying they are--the worst of the field.
Personally, I don't want to endure a bully as president for even four years. I don't want to turn on the TV or the radio or go to the internet and find out that McCain has blown up in the face of anyone, let alone a foreign leader or on someone in Congress or in his own party.
Some already think we've had a cowboy in the White House. I don't hold the same hatred for Bush as others do, but at the same time, I can't say I've been happy with quite a few decisions he's made. Regardless of how you feel about Bush, do we now need to have a maverick in the White House? Doesn't it amount to more or less the same thing?
Bullies can be charming, and they can be witty, but at the end of the day, to use an incredibly worn catch phrase, they're still overbearing, sanctimonious and compensating for something they lack. None of those adjectives describe a leader.