As many are probably well aware, the Republican National Convention, scheduled to start August 27th, has been postponed a day because of Tropical Storm Isaac. But never fear, there's still plenty of hype surrounding it. In the final rush leading up to the RNC, many attempts are being made to change the American people's perspective of Mitt Romney in order to portray him in a better light.
Romney is, of course, somewhat infamous for being "plastic and remote," according to this LA Times article. Many of his early attempts at connecting with the middle and lower classes were marked with embarrassing mistakes, enough to merit him his own meme. Luckily for him, his wife Ann is now trying to make up for past misconceptions and introduce the "real" Mitt Romney to the country. To be fair, it's a curious political strategy, considering that most elections tend to focus on much more macho topics of conversation. Ann Romney has provided a twist, and if she succeeds at identifying her husband, it may garner enough support to propel Romney to the White House.
In a more political tone, Time Magazine has recently published an interview where Romney defends his economic plans, and goes more in-depth about the rationale behind his methodology. This is a pleasant change from the standard technique of criticizing the Obama Administration's failure at economic recovery because it provides actual insight into why Romney believes his plans would prove better. And, to be fair, he and Ryan tend to have rather compelling economic plans, barring the Ryan Plan, which is surrounded by so much controversy that it seems no one truly understands it. To further summarize the article, it seems as though Romney may have moved past some hiccups that he experienced on a recent international trip, as he commented with a surprisingly thoughtful critique of the Obama Administration's policies regarding Afghanistan. Perhaps he can prove to the country that he does, in fact, understand foreign affairs.
Romney also speaks highly of his religious beliefs, a credit to him when many of his Republican supporters still question their own opinions on Mormonism. While his boost in religious confidence may be a useful tool to the GOP, it also issues the worrying note that religion plays heavily into the political sphere, especially during the RNC. It naturally raises the question, how influential should religion be in politics? Should a candidate's religion matter to the voting public?
4 comments:
I really have been slightly amused with Mitt Romney's attempts to appear more "human" in the past, but I find it fairly sweet that Ann Romney is stepping up to try and make her husband seem more real. With the RNC coming up, I am hoping that some real content might be talked about, and the Time Magazine interview makes me happy that Romney wishes to truly talk about his plans if he becomes president. I feel that quite a bit of the discussion in regard to this election has been merely each side throwing accusations at each other. It's been tiring, to be quite frank. But I am genuinely looking forward to the next few months, partially because I am truly curious as to whether Obama will hold onto the presidency or not.
While Ann Romney may be trying to clear up Mitt's "human" appearance, as a potential presidential candidate, I think it's important that Mitt learns to clearly articulate himself and get his own views across. But yes, as Taylor said, it is a fairly sweet gesture. The Time magazine article provided a some insight as to his intentions and was a refreshing breather after hearing Nikki Hayley in particular go on and on about how bad Obama has been for the nation (when she spoke at the RNC). A focus on Mitt Romney's actual plans was fairly interesting to read. As for the question on religion, in all fairness it would ideally be a non-issue when it comes to politics and even lawmaking. Most people probably wouldn't be happy if I suggested we ban all meat-eating just because MY religion says so now would they? While I personally keep all religious matters separate from politics, it has undeniably come to the forefront time and time again when discussing American politics. In summary, despite the fact that it should not truly matter, it definitely does, and in the future, I would hope that begins to change.
I agree with Taylor and Smita in that Ann Romney's decision to speak on behalf of her husband and defend his good qualities is very loyal, but the skeptic in me has to wonder if it was completely her idea, or if Mr. Romney realized where he was falling short and decided that using his wife to make him look better would be the best strategic approach. (That's not to say all politicians don't use whatever or whomever they can to better their images!)
In regard to religion and politics: this seems to be a very tricky issue that should be very straightforward. The separation of church and state is something that I believe is incredibly important. It is fine to have beliefs, or not to have beliefs, but I don't feel that the presence or absence of said beliefs is something that makes a person more or less qualified to run the country. Additionally, it seems to me that many voters see candidates who share their religious beliefs (or come closer to sharing their religious beliefs) and decide to "like" that candidate on (perhaps not solely, but largely) that basis. Is that an unfair assumption?
Having Ann Romney speak about the "humanness" of her husband seems like an interesting approach for the RNC because it's nice to actually hear from a candidate's family rather than just see a smiling and waving close-up shot whenever the candidate gives a shout-out during his speech. Maybe it could provide a small window into Romney's personal life for viewers to peek into and find out what kind of person he truly is. But then again, we also have to consider Eavan's mention of Romney deliberately using his wife as part of his strategy.
Post a Comment