The Contemptuous Candidate
0 
thedailybeast.com - Patrician
Contemptuous describes behavior that is disdainful, sneering, insolent, arrogant, supercilious, and haughty. It is a manner of behavior that is singularly unbecoming in a president or a presidential candidate. It is also the most striking characteristics of Mitt Romney’s behavior in 2012.
Mitt’s rationale for not releasing more tax returns is to deny the Obama campaign access to more fodder for their opposition research team. In blunt terms, Willard fears the efforts of Obama supporters or consultants of a political candidate to legally investigate his biographical, financial, legal, medical, educational, public and private administrative records, as well as prior media coverage. He is clearly worried about what they will find. He is also trying to force the American electorate to take him at his word concerning his financial and business dealings. Given that the information currently discovered has contradicted his claims in many ways, Romney’s concerns are probably well founded. He displays his disdain for the electorate by choosing to stonewall disclosure requests and the legal minimum disclosure is “all that is necessary for people to understand something about” his finances. He arrogantly dismisses the desire to understand and learn more than he is willing to disclose.
Mitt’s rationale for not releasing more tax returns is to deny the Obama campaign access to more fodder for their opposition research team. In blunt terms, Willard fears the efforts of Obama supporters or consultants of a political candidate to legally investigate his biographical, financial, legal, medical, educational, public and private administrative records, as well as prior media coverage. He is clearly worried about what they will find. He is also trying to force the American electorate to take him at his word concerning his financial and business dealings. Given that the information currently discovered has contradicted his claims in many ways, Romney’s concerns are probably well founded. He displays his disdain for the electorate by choosing to stonewall disclosure requests and the legal minimum disclosure is “all that is necessary for people to understand something about” his finances. He arrogantly dismisses the desire to understand and learn more than he is willing to disclose.
In this same slew of interviews, Romney offered up few new details on his role at Bain Capital and repeated that voters should not expect more information on his finances. He again insisted that he bore no responsibility for any investments or actions taken by Bain from 1999-2002 while he was running the Olympics, despite being shown as the company’s sole stockholder, president, CEO and chairman of the board in numerous SEC filings. In some of these same filings, Romney was shown as drawing a salary of “over $100,000.” If these filings were accurate, it boggles the mind that a person holding the positions indicated and compensated as shown could bear no responsibility for the actions, decisions, and practices of the relevant organizations.
When these numerous documents were filed with the SEC Willard signed them with the attendant declaration “I certify that statements I have made on this form and all attached schedules are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.” If these documents are accurate, then the Obama campaign is correct. Romney would be guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms, and perhaps thereby committing a felony. Making false statements to the federal government is a serious crime (under 18 USC 1001) and it carries possible fines plus up to five years in federal prison. Because such a savvy executive would know the consequences of false filings, the probability is that the SEC filings were truthful and Willard is prevaricating now. As Richard Cohen states, “It hardly matters who was running Bain when some steelworkers were fired and their jobs sent across the great ocean. If Romney was really in charge, he was doing what he was being paid to do. If Romney was not in charge, others did what he would have done — and he, the record shows, did not complain. He merely deposited the checks.” Romney began this supercilious tale of no responsibility for political convenience. Absurdly, Romney claims credit for jobs at Staples which emerged long after his supposed retirement and abandonment of Bain, but writhes and froths at the mouth when out sourcing and job cuts in the same post-1999 period are cited. He wants to claim his experience at Bain is a major qualification for the presidency, but evade all adverse aspects of his career and its consequences. He dismisses the legitimate concerns of his opponents and the citizenry because he feels entitled to command and he is accustomed to obedience.
On his Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: it says, “Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.” At the start of the twenty-first century, Willard certified that he was the ultimate authority in Bain Capital. When he launched his current presidential campaign last summer, he denied any active role in any way with any Bain Capital entity. It is genuinely impossible for both sets of documents to be true and forthright.
The key element of Willard’s evasive tactic is the contention that he left the running of “day-to-day operations to Bain’s Executive Committee.” In this, he is like a President who might claim to leave the routine battlefield decisions to the theater commanders. As Harry Truman observed, “The buck stops here.” If Romney had the authority the stipulated positions clearly imply he would have had, he cannot credibly claim to have no responsibility for the operations of Bain and associated entities. Romney is rebutting a contention by referring to something else, so his rebuttal is only apparent and not real. By saying he left the running of the day-to-day operations to others, he is asserting that he did not approve every expenditure or personnel action. As the “sole stockholder, president, CEO and chairman of the board,” however, he must have been the final authority on major and key decisions or he was perpetrating a fraud on all Bain’s clients and he was taking his salary of “over $100,000” under false pretenses.
Submissions to the SEC are supposed to be true. While Romney and Bain have made self-interested assertions that the referenced documents are meaningless, however, this premise flies in the face of common sense. Willard listed his “principal occupation” as Managing Director of Bain Capital at least through February 2001. So called “fact checkers” have offered their opinions that the Obama campaign has not proven the contention that Romney made false statements to the federal government, but their opinions are not facts. Romney is on record as the sole stockholder, president, CEO and chairman of the board for up to three years after his supposed retirement. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, how can anyone honestly disregard what Romney told the SEC in 142 signed documents? Why should anyone believe self-serving denials now?
Willard’s contemptuous approach is not limited to evasiveness and dismissiveness .regarding his role at Bain and his personal financial gains pursuant thereto. He put it on full display in front of the National NAACP conferees on July 11, 2012. Romney declared, “I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president.” He then proceeded to make absolutely no attempt to explain “who he truly is in his heart and to fully communicate what he believes is in the real enduring best interest of African-American families.” Why would he say this and do that unless he has no real respect for the people to whom he is making such a claim? Can one make a more condescending and arrogant approach to people than telling them they don’t support you is that they don’t understand you?
He also praised the NAACP’s leadership in the past and observed that “many barriers remain, old inequities persist [and] in some ways the challenges are even more complicated than before.” He did not, however, even acknowledge the efforts of the Republican Party to enact voter ID requirements in many states. From his NAACP speech one would never suspect such things were happening. Members of the NAACP have earned the right to be skeptical of these GOP-led voting restrictions, given the history of the country and the organization’s historic efforts in righting that particular wrong. Medgar Evers, a Mississippi NAACP official and others gave their lives in the effort to win and protect the right of minorities to vote. Now under the completely unfounded pretext of voter fraud through impersonation, Republicans are enacting restrictive voter identification requirements that suppress likely Democratic Party voters. These efforts have been a particular focus of NAACP efforts in 2011 and beyond. Because Mr. Romney was using them as props for future fundraising videos rather actually courting their votes, he did not even acknowledge their efforts or the laws they are strongly opposing. Instead of understanding the long history of the NAACP and the diversity and accomplishments of its members in the audience he was addressing, Romney talked at them rather than with them. He lectured, he scolded, he incited. He told the NAACP. A blatant example of this was his declaration, “If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you’re looking at him — you take a look.” Once again, Willard mad a bald assertion and followed it up with an imperative. It truly seemed if he believed things are true whenever he says they are true. The adverse reaction of his immediate audience cannot influence his belief let alone change it.
So in several separate settings, Romney has again demonstrated his CEO derived arrogance. He told the media and the American electorate they had plenty of financial information and they should quit asking for more. He told the NAACP convention that if it were possible for him to fully communicate what he believes is in the real, enduring best interests of African Americans they would vote for him, but he made no effort to do so. He declared to this same audience that they should take a look at “a president who will make things better in the African-American community” they should check him out. Having said that he smiled smugly through the incredulous reaction, but made no effort to elaborate. Time and again, Romney has made vacuous generalizations either to assert his prowess or to attack President Obama. Every time he has done so he sneers at those who ask for detail. If he truly respected the American electorate, he would be far more specific about his assertions and his attacks. The fact that he relentlessly declines to do so reveals Mitt Romney as the Contemptuous Candidate.
Lest there be any lingering doubt that Romney played the NAACP and held it and its members in contempt, he cleared that up in a subsequent appearance in Montana.
This will probably help Romney with certain segments of the Republican base, but the broader electorate may well react negatively to the contemptuous attitude he displays toward people who support health care reform, who simply want the insurance that they pay for to actually cover them and their loved ones when they need it to.
The Contemptuous Candidate,
I live in Allegheny County, PA. I am married and a father of twins. I served in the U S Army and saw hostile fire in Vietnam. When I was in the Army I took and oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I have never rescinded that oath. For whatever time remains for me, I will do all in my power to answer the question, "What can I do for my country?" View My Profile
Tags: Bain, citizens, COntempt, elections, NAACP, Politics, President, Republican, romney, taxes, Voters
