Romney was right. So?

On playgrounds, as in life, there are groups of self-made winners and groups of self-made losers.  When picked upon by the winners, the losers, often at a loss as to know how to defend their indefensible choices simply answer, "so?"

"Whatever" and "meh" are variations on this old escape theme.

Which brings us to the question: How do you explain that about half the country says they are prepared to settle for re-electing a proven loser?

Part of the answer lies indeed with Romney's 47%.  (Romney, I believe, wasn't writing them off as people, but as campaign efforts-a realistic and honest assessment on his part.) Nevertheless, I would argue that the 47% supporting Obama aren't doing so because they are dependent or feel as though they are victims.

They support him because if a winner were to win the White House, say the next Teddy Roosevelt, it would surely upset the status quo-including removing fatalism as a defense for not trying. It would mean change-real change. And change upsets people. The very idea of it upsets them more than the abstract, but very real, treasury figures showing the onrush of tsunami size debt and default with no high ground to retreat to.

Electing a winner would mean that value producing, tough, competitive private sector jobs would become available, that personal accountability might become fashionable again, and, hell, they might even bring back the draft.

But there is more to it than that. There is the post-1960s Hollywood anti-hero; the narrow shouldered, soft kind of personality who is seen as a victim fighting against a world out to get him. In this fashion, about half the country identifies with Obama, a put-upon guy trying to do the best he can in a world full of monster Republicans.

Obama, who has played people for suckers all his life, built his campaign on this image to cover his losing record:

  • George Bush is responsible for all the problems I can't solve.
  • The Republicans won't let me do what I need to do to change the country
  • Mitt Romney (who created more permanent private sector jobs than Obama's trillion dollar stimulus) fired people. Do we want a President who actually fired people?

And of course there's the race card ("People cling...), the dependency card (Immigration, Obamacare, Public unions), and the ultimate verbal shelter of the committed loser, as played out in the main stream media mostly in the form of egregious omissions of Obama's failures: "So?"



On playgrounds, as in life, there are groups of self-made winners and groups of self-made losers.  When picked upon by the winners, the losers, often at a loss as to know how to defend their indefensible choices simply answer, "so?"

"Whatever" and "meh" are variations on this old escape theme.

Which brings us to the question: How do you explain that about half the country says they are prepared to settle for re-electing a proven loser?

Part of the answer lies indeed with Romney's 47%.  (Romney, I believe, wasn't writing them off as people, but as campaign efforts-a realistic and honest assessment on his part.) Nevertheless, I would argue that the 47% supporting Obama aren't doing so because they are dependent or feel as though they are victims.

They support him because if a winner were to win the White House, say the next Teddy Roosevelt, it would surely upset the status quo-including removing fatalism as a defense for not trying. It would mean change-real change. And change upsets people. The very idea of it upsets them more than the abstract, but very real, treasury figures showing the onrush of tsunami size debt and default with no high ground to retreat to.

Electing a winner would mean that value producing, tough, competitive private sector jobs would become available, that personal accountability might become fashionable again, and, hell, they might even bring back the draft.

But there is more to it than that. There is the post-1960s Hollywood anti-hero; the narrow shouldered, soft kind of personality who is seen as a victim fighting against a world out to get him. In this fashion, about half the country identifies with Obama, a put-upon guy trying to do the best he can in a world full of monster Republicans.

Obama, who has played people for suckers all his life, built his campaign on this image to cover his losing record:

  • George Bush is responsible for all the problems I can't solve.
  • The Republicans won't let me do what I need to do to change the country
  • Mitt Romney (who created more permanent private sector jobs than Obama's trillion dollar stimulus) fired people. Do we want a President who actually fired people?

And of course there's the race card ("People cling...), the dependency card (Immigration, Obamacare, Public unions), and the ultimate verbal shelter of the committed loser, as played out in the main stream media mostly in the form of egregious omissions of Obama's failures: "So?"



RECENT VIDEOS