Having had time to think about the Obama Administration’s new DHS directive on immigration, Mitt still didn’t have a position for the Sunday talk shows. He said we need a “long-term solution” for those who came here illegally as children, while being extremely careful not to indicate what that solution should be.
Democrat or Republican aside, just looking at him as a prospective president, he’s an empty suit. A leader thinks long and hard about the issues and takes positions based on his core convictions and his vision for the country. He then uses his leadership skills to convince those he leads or seeks to lead why he is right.
Mitt has no core convictions and no vision for the country. All he thinks or cares about is what positions will help him win. When he contemplates what’s “right,” it’s not right as opposed to wrong, it’s right as opposed to left — what exact spot on that spectrum will get him 270 electoral votes.
Embattled Farmers 
He certainly seems to lack core convictions, that’s a fact. I’ve been trying to think of historical examples of recent presidents who’ve been similar, and how their presidencies ended up.
Can you think of any recent examples?
On the one hand, it seems Bush 43 is at the far end of the spectrum. You knew where he stood. You knew he wouldn’t change. And it didn’t matter if it was 99 percent unpopular.
But I’m wondering who fits the other mold, and more so, if we can’t come up with any, is this an indication that you don’t get elected if you don’t have strong convictions? (Kerry comes to mind as someone who changed quite a bit, but he wasn’t elected. I don’t remember Dole having strong convictions, and wonder if that hurt him. McCain used to have strong convictions, but by the time he ran, he seemed all over the place.)
Anyway, love to hear your edu-macated answer to this!
I think Bush 41 had strong views on foreign/defense policies, domestic stuff, not so much. He ended up a one-termer. I feel very strongly that if Mitt wins, he will be a one-termer.
Yes!!! Bush 41 was a great example. Can’t believe I over-looked him.
I do know that being President has to be one of the greatest drains of energy a person can go through. I can’t imagine wanting to become one unless I had all kinds of ideas on how I could improve this country and make it better.
The main other reason to become one might be power or fame, but I’m not sure Mitt falls into this category. I think he really believes he can help the economy, but other than that, I’m not sure what his desire is.
I just think it’s pure ambition. He’s a very shallow guy with a strong sense of entitlement.
Hadn’t considered the entitlement line of thinking. I’ll go with that.
It does seem to run with those who are super wealthy.
The empty suits hanging in my husband’s closet have more core convictions than Wlllard Mittens. At least they know where they stand – hanging in there, waiting to serve when called upon, and they don’t look left or right to see which way the shirts or khakis are leaning before rising to the occasion.
Not much to laugh about today, but this made me laugh.
Pray for two things:
1. that Romney doesn’t get elected
2. Should he be elected, the phone never rings at 3:00 A.M.
The phone always rings at 3 AM at some point (or points) in your term. The easy stuff gets solved at lower levels.