Romney: A Moot Trajectory

“A well-adjusted person is one who makes the same mistake twice without getting nervous.”- Alexander Hamilton  

I’m lost, at the moment, in a whirling tempest; it seems as if I’m looking at a blender full of sludge seasoned with strips of paper each bearing the name of one of the current crop of GOP Candidates. As the goo whirls about in the clear-glass blender occasionally a strip of paper makes its appearance in the rotation. Who will it be; Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Perry and a – what’s-his-name…oh yes, Romney? I’m not entirely sure the determining factors are faithful to a necessary outcome; in fact, it may be far more reasonable to presume that it may not be possible.  

Witnessing the first of two planned New Hampshire – dare I say it – debates I’ve confirmed for myself that that what is taking place is nothing more than the least-faithful-exhibition, by way of the worst-possible-demonstration, of Leadership Capacity – bar none. I recognized this scene once before on the occasion of a visit to a Seniors Facility. I had arrive during a bingo game and the image, as I recall it, was of a group of six eighty year old men embroiled in an argument; the core issue was a playing-card and whether or not the self-announced winner had marked-off far too many numbers. The caller dutifully recited each of the numbers and though it was determined that the player had managed to mark each of the numbers they were not situated in a winning pattern. Still four of the grumpy ‘ol men continued to insisted that his card had far too many marked spaces and that because he had cheated he should be disqualified; meanwhile one loan hold-out stood there shaking his head and repeating again and again; “Your all deaf and blind as bats! What difference does it make you fools; he didn’t win, he doesn’t have the numbers lined up in the right way!” The determined non-winner, without a word, got up out of his chair and went to the other end of the room, sat down on the sofa and within two-three minutes began to snore. 

Seems as if, here too, four of six “well-adjusted” persons were occupied simulating A Moot Trajectory while one tried to argue relevant points and the other simply opted for a nap.    

So which is it? Are the Polls correct as to the plausible outcome or will our New Hampshire friends maintain their tradition and do the opposite of the expected?  I truly do hope that they choose not to break tradition by forming nicely in-line with the GOP/DNC winning formula. Yes, it is the Live Free or Die State and this 2012 Election Cycle is serious business and when you just happen to be the 9thleast populous State in the Union identity is extraordinarily relevant and I’d like to remind the Residents of the Granite State just how very relevant being relevant is! 

All of which leads me to Mr. Romney and his presumed (winning) trajectory so I will move straight to the point:  

  • Mitt Romney is none other than the GOP equivalent of President Obama.
  • On the substantive level, their pathologies are strikingly similar, their standing as to specific policy objectives are equally benign and obsolete.
  • Their ability to morph with transient moods makes them the equal of the other.
  • As to Constitutional Ideals they are equally thallic and if on this single element alone, should be deemed strictly ineligible.
  • As to the mastery of the incoherent and disparate equivocations; they have no equal (the exception being of course the other).
  • As to business acumen or capacity for grasping or construction of a regenerative economic policy, despite what Mr. Romney may say, they are both interested (only) in maintaining the alliances that have brought them to their current standing; this would obviously excludes the more lofty Ideals that one would hope accompany an Individual in the hunt for the highest office of the land.  
  • As to Banking, Monetary or Tax Policy; each is equally inconsequential and uninspiring.
  • As to the matter of Foreign Policy; if this issue remains vague as to actual source material, let me explain: The Bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of State, the Central Intelligence Agency, The Pentagon and The Council on Foreign Relations – more often than any will dare acknowledge – has far more influence on the Office of the President as to Foreign Policy than does the President.   

These points are not intended to demean Mr. Romney’s person, the fact is that many of these very same comments apply to the other Candidates as well. In short, I find the only thing remarkable about Mr. Romney is that he manages to project an element of Presidential Form while at the same time possessing absolutely no substantive ballast. Let me be even clearer; his standing is merely a matter of a sizable war-chest, including the blind-funding of his Super-Pac (courtesy of Messrs. McCain & Feingold & the U.S. Supreme Court) and the media positioning it purchases and nothing to do with substantive capacity. Were this not the case, setting aside Rick Santorum’s move with only a fraction of Romney’s funding sources, then why the need to call on political light-weights such as Senator McCain or New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie; outside of their respective microbial reefs, who knows them. Moreover, who really cares? Personally I find their alliance a distinctly compelling reason NOT to support him (Romney).  

“My Experience is in leadership.”- Mitt Romney 1/7/12 

As I recall, particularly with respect to his reign of success as a Chicago-based Community Organizer, seems as if President Obama might very well make the same claim but then again we now have the benefit of hind-site for measuring the Presidents leadership qualities; I see no reason to afford Mr. Romney the same risk. 

To be sure Mr. Romney, as well as the others, deserves a far greater and virile challenge although at the moment he manages to successfully duck tough and deliberative inquiry largely due to an implicit accommodation on the part of two enterprises: The first being the moderators/inquisitors(1) who pay far too much homage to Gov. Perry “oops” moments than to penetrating inquiry. Next in line is the GOP and their let’s remember it’s Obama who’s the target and not your GOP opponent routine which can only be seen as a cover for sub-text: the likelihood that few of the other so-called top-tier candidates can survive a more in-depth and robust inquiry. Whatever the case, for the American People, the entire approach emulates a losing strategy and this Nation has for far too long endured the consequences of the Political-Policy First approach to governance. This, in the end, is the reference is the genesis of the phrase: A Moot Trajectory – A presumed outcome possessing no substantive, reliable or foundational source in support of its asserted claim.     

I sincerely pray that the American Public is awakening to the fact that this entire process is one massive imposition; the imposition of a process that is decidedly biased against projecting a best possible scenario. The Public continues to be subjected to the choice made available routine which is not at all unlike an arranged marriage; the presumption that a predetermined choice made available will render a presumed outcome. Fine if playing a game of roulette…. 

And so, to bring this all to a close, I willingly confess that I have a very difficult time accepting that government functions best when able to impose a view that is diametrically opposed to the moral compass or conscience of a people and their Constitutional Ideals. I find it, marginally, worse that what is offered and far too often measured as the Will of the People is only determined by the volume of the few and in the frequency of occurrence where the knob is controlled by the narcissist. 

If nothing else is to be learned from this 2012 Election Cycle one point of interest will remain and it is in the form of an admonition which appears in George Washington’s Farewell Address; I believe we need to revisit this man’s word and become willing students dedicated to owning and perfecting its message. Until we do the consequences of having failed its principal will endure:  

(Note: The [bracketed] segment is to an earlier parenthetic reference wherein the President refers, collectively, to undue influences.)  

“However combinations or Associations [of the above description] may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” – Pres. George Washington – Farewell Address, 1796  

Never rest your Life, Liberty or Noble Pursuits and the conscience of government; as the inanimate has neither allegiance nor deference to the higher causes of discernment and is routinely and easily distracted by the impulse of ignoble urge. In the end, one has only the extension of individual will to oppose, at every juncture, the vanity of bias in search of that which is inviolable: Your Life, your Liberties and your most Noble Pursuits. It is for these reasons the Founders defined the concept of Limited Government; our choosing to challenge this fundamental law is why government continues to fail so efficiently. 

(Note: (1) Update – 1/08/12 @ 11:03Am (PT); Though the Candidates ( with the exception of Ron Paul and John Huntsman)  performance, during today’s Meet the Press broadcast Debate, did not render me cause to improve my opinion I nonetheless commend the Producers and Moderator, David Gregory, for attempting a more penetrating inquiry.) 

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *