Tuesday, September 25, 2012

The Enigma That Is "Mitch" Romney

I've noticed the few times I've been able to check in to the Intertubes lately that there are a number of posts and articles circulating about Romney's religion, specifically its controlling and authoritarian nature and the fact that Mormon church missionaries and officials are essentially enjoined to "lie for the Lord" as part of their calling.

The behavior of both Ann and "Mitch" Romney (h/t Letterman) has been a demonstration of both characteristics from the get-go, and the fact that people are only now beginning to connect the dots is something of a mystery. I was certainly out front in noting that "lying for the Lord" was something that Mormons do, and in some cases are expected to do. It's part of Mormon culture.

I also pointed out that when "Mitch's" father was endowed in the Church, there was a vow of vengeance against the United States for the murder most foul of Church Founder Joseph Smith and his brother.

Note has been made of the fact that "Mitch" is himself a "high official" in the Mormon Church, but a Mormon bishop is not the equivalent of a Catholic or Episcopalian one, and a Stake President isn't quite the same thing as an Archbishop. The issue for "Mitch" is not that he holds a position within the church hierarchy -- which he does -- it is that he is in direct and apparently frequent contact with the Mormon Highest of the Mighty. He's quite proud of it too. (The link goes to a very revealing radio interview from last December. It's... interesting.)

So the question is raised about whether a President Romney would serve his church or the nation. Would he act on the Vow of Vengeance? Would he take direction from the current crop of wrinkled old men who run the Mormon enterprise from the shadows?

Now of course I remember the same sort of questions being asked about John F. Kennedy when he was running for president. Anti-Catholicism was still very prominent in this country, and electing a Catholic to the highest office in the land was considered too horrifying to imagine for many Americans.

I don't know that there is nearly as much anti-Mormonism abroad in the land today as there was anti-Catholicism back then, and that makes questioning Romney's religion problematical. To me, it's worth understanding some of these matters, but it's not, ultimately, all that important, in part because there are probably as many admirable aspects of Mormonism as there are questionable ones. As far as I'm concerned, all organized  religions are cults of one sort or another, and for believers, their cult is always the Best.

No, my issue with "Mitch" doesn't revolve around his religion. Instead, I question his mental acuity. In other words, the man doesn't appear to be very bright. Cruel, certainly. Bright, not at all.

Which makes one wonder how exactly he managed to accumulate more money than God (well, in a manner of speaking), and to become the boon companion of such luminaries as Netanyahu and the rest of the Neo-Con crowd, let alone become the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Of course cruelty has become the standard necessity for political success these days, so that explains that. But he seems to have social and other difficulties (some of which are being snarkily attributed to early-onset dementia) that I doubt are really new but have probably always been part of his make up. The dude is mean and dumb.

So how does someone like that rise so high? Why does anyone else in his class tolerate him?

Speaking of class, I've noticed that Ann's behavior is distinctly nouveau. This woman may have gone to private school, but she obviously lacks breeding and could not have come from money, at least not old money. Say what I will about Bar-Be'elze-Bitch, mother (so they say) of the Bush Boys, she at least knows how to play the Grand Dame and can actually pull it off most of the time. Ann Romney can't. If this were an audition, she would have been thanked and sent packing long ago. Same with "Mitch" for that matter.

The enigma, for me, is how these people manage to rise as it were at all. "Mitch" and his wife are clearly not... "made" for what they have accumulated and seek to acquire. In some other role, they might be fine, but in the roles they want, they are abominations.

What's up with that?

[Note: Cat bite is healing thanks to powerful antibiotics, but it's one nasty mutherfugger; there have been no more wasps. Unloading of excess stuff continues.]


  1. In an aristocracy, a coterie of smart, ambitious men (and women) will form around a promising Prince. The Prince's intellect isn't a question. He got to be a Prince for other reasons than his brains, after all.

    There are a few different kind of Princes in the United States. Princes of the Blood, like Romney, who like George W. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Along with that silver spoon were the keys to the kingdom, multiple lifetimes of heavy political connections there for the asking without much effort needed.

    Besides them are the Demagogue Princes, like La Palin, the Savonarella of Wasilia, who have a way of appealing to the common people through a combination of sex appeal, madness, hucksterism and religious fervor in varying amounts. I felt it unlikely that a person so slight as Palin could win the White House, however, through some madness she was given control of the natural resource rich state of Alaska, an accomplishment of which she was justly proud.

    The problem, then, is one of control. If Romney truly is a meaner version of Thurston Howell III (media people show their age, a meaner version of Howell, why that's Montgomery "Monty" Burns!) then he will treat the Presidency with little interest aside from diplomatic and official functions where his "breeding" can shine through. The actual task of governance will be left to others. Perhaps that young buck Paul Ryan, who, to Romney, seems a fine fellow and so full of good ideas. Perhaps to others. It might be trouble for his gang if Romney took a hands on approach, rather than being content with his princely duties. Still, I think that unlikely.

    Nowadays we don't elect Presidents, we elect Gangs. Will the Romney Gang do better than the Obama Outfit? Well, I doubt it.

  2. I'm not sure we actually "elect" anything or anyone. Elections and candidates are so much Show and Theater.

    But aristocracy, most definitely, something Americans never truly rejected. Trouble is, in America, the aristocrats have never been much more than greedy guts, Buffy's Keshagesh, with little or no redeeming value.

    The sheer dumbass that is Romney is painful to witness, moreso than that of Bush the Lesser in some ways.

    That Ryan youth just creeps me out. Much more than Herself -- La Palin -- ever did. He's a Believer. She's an Actress...