Ever since Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican nominating process, Mitt Romney has turned his attention and rhetoric in the direction of the general election. With the Texas primary behind him, and the nomination firmly grasped in the white-gloved hands of his car butler, perhaps Romney can put some energy toward improving upon one of his greatest shortcomings: Answering press questions for which he should already have concise, canned answers.
However, because Romney was programmed by failed Windows Vista engineers, the next five months promise to sound a lot like some of the gems he’s tossed out in the past few days.
On Friday, he sat for an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan-a home game if ever there was one. And, queried about his feelings on the ‘game’ of politics, he offered this:
“I like competition, and I think the game is like a sport for old guys. I mean, you know, I can’t compete in competitive sports very well, but I can compete in politics, and there’s the—what was the old ABC ‘Wide World of Sports’ slogan? ‘The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.’ The only difference is victory is still a thrill, but I don’t feel agony in loss.”
If Romney had simply stopped himself at ‘and the agony of defeat’, it would be a comment that many could connect to. Competitiveness is in the DNA of many Americans-it’s what makes sports so popular and fanaticism so prevalent in this country.
In it’s entirety, the comment is very telling. In admitting he doesn’t feel any agony in losing, he reminds us of what seems apparent-he’s not on some crusade to make the lives of Americans better. It sounds exactly like what you’d expect from a super rich guy in his 60s who comes from a family with a political past. It’s either this or retirement, and based on this quote, golf is apparently out of the picture. That pretty much leaves politics or a multitude of potential vices, of which Romney has none, because he’s dull.
Just for fun, let’s couple this remark with his statements on Monday, when he was asked about the support he is receiving from Donald Trump:
“You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in. But I need to get 50.1% or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
Let’s ignore for a moment that:
A) Romney just used the phrase ‘good people’ in a sentence while referring to Donald Trump.
B) Ol’ Willard has apparently not been briefed on the electoral college. Perhaps he could ask the last Republican president about the need to win 50.1% of the vote.
Now that everyone who clicked that last link has finished vomiting, let us discuss this rationally and in context with the previous statement.
I’ve fully accepted that most of our politicians are at least lacking in (if not fully bereft of) principles. There’s something that’s almost craven about what statements like these mean for our political process and, by extension, our country, that I can’t help but feel uneasy at them.
Essentially, Romney is admitting that he wants to win this thing-and that’s normal. Then, in his handling of the Trump backing, he’s essentially saying that, in order to do that, he may have to court some unsavory partners in the short run.
It’s naive to think that hasn’t been the case for much of our political history. The facts bear that out-to get the backing needed to win political office, sometimes a candidate takes on some odd alliances.
Romney’s just tying it up into a nice little package for us-and doing so ahead of the election. For so many politicians, winning the election is the only thing that truly matters. The cost of doing so is irrelevant. We elect these men and women to represent us and protect us-and they spend most of their time worrying about ‘winning’ and ensuring that the other side ‘loses’.
For Romney, his victory comes in defeating President Obama, period.
In candid moments, that seems to be as far as he can really think. If he doesn’t win? He and his friends are still rich, and he can just cruise right on into retirement. That’s why there’s no ‘agony of defeat’ for Mitt Romney.
