Romney Needs A Booster

The selection of appropriate responses in such instances is so rich that it truly is a puzzlement.

If there was ever a time to worry about 'nice guys always finish last,' this is it.

Tom, I have been thinking lately about this very quality: toughness. Honestly, very few presidential candidates have had it. Teddy Roosevelt had it in spades (as much as I dislike some aspects of his politics). Eisenhower certainly had it. Reagan did too (the shooting proved that). Bob Dole did. So did Bush Sr. But Romney is just one of many who don't really have it. Having it helps a lot, if one wants to be Prez. In the primaries, Romney was able to get away without having much of it (having tons of money helped). But you're right: now it's starting to show (not that Obama has any toughness; he doesn't.)

I don't share these views. It's all just personal projection- whoever is speaking- but from my angle, "toughness" does not have only one face. I think Romney does feel it in his gut but responds in different way.Passive in a strong sense- not a weak one. I don't need an overt display of "toughness" that the media keeps demanding.In fact I think it is tough that Romney doesn't give in to that demand by altering his personality.

I hope America sees it as well. The media isn't always right. A calm silent person can also be a tough person.

Good insights, MA, but there are at least two dimensions here.

One is how you would lead.

The other is how you win the election that gives you the chance to lead.

I agree but that is up to the American public. For all the media knows, the American public might not see things in the same way as the media. Romney is pretty much the opposite in style, character, and personality as Obama but the media acts like Romney needs to compete on Obama's terms- as if that were strength.

It isn't just Romney who looks and acts like he's never been in a fight; the same can be said of Obama and that's O's weakness. He's been coddled his whole life because he is "black" (really, half black) by his academic and media pals and has never been a political bar fight.

Personally, I think its Romney's over paid but very ineffective Neo-Con and establishment advisers who are holding him back. He needs to challenge Obama on foreign policy (the failed triple-down on Afghanistan, Libya, and the whole "Arab Spring" fiasco); on Obama's crippling economic policies, mentioning the "real" unemployment rate; the unsupported and unaffordable government takeover of the Health Care system and the danger it poses to even present Medicare recipients; Obama's far Left cultural agenda, like mandated contraceptive coverage on private institutions and "Gay Marriage"; and Obama's flouting of our immigration laws by aggressive non-enforcement which essentially is "electing and new people" while under cutting unemployed Americans looking for a job.

I think Romney needs to show white, working class men in States like Ohio, VA, WI, and parts of FL that he has enough grit and toughness inside him to save or restore their jobs and improve their prospects for the future if he expects to get their vote. Romney needs that specific demographic more than he does the soft-headed, single woman's vote. That media directed voting cohort has already sailed. I think the working-class, blue-collar white male vote is still up for grabs but it is looking for a reasonable alternative to Obama besides warmed-over GWB. Romney needs to address their issues and take some chances in the debates of offending Obama's adoring MSM by rhetorically roughing Obama up on some of the fore-mentioned issues. No use being the nice country-clubber now.

With Obama's rarely mentioned overwhelming advantage among non-white voters, except single women and under thirty voters, Romney will need in excess of 60% of the white vote to win even a close election. What is Romney willing to do to get it? If he does no more than McCain did (55% in 2008), such as not even mentioning Affirmative Action (anti-white male discrimination) or the ties O had with the Chicago-based, black racist "church" of "Rev" Jeremiah Wright, working class men may just stay home while their college "educated" daughters line up for Obama. The result: Romney, the GOP, and American conservatism will quietly go down in flames without even a whimper. Bob Seger's "Beautiful Loser".

Just repeating you'll never raise taxes on millionaires will not be enough for an unemployed or under employed, blue-collar, American manufacturing worker to turn off the football game and go and vote for Romney. Mitt needs to give them a much better reason for doing so than what has been articulated. What the GOP has offered to this voting demographic in the last twelve years (long wars, out-sourced highly paid jobs, legalized discrimination, and piles of debt) isn't going to sell. It's way past the time for Mitt and the GOP to start reclaiming the "Reagan Democrats" again. In today's multi-culti America, you can't win without them.

I think what Tom's getting at is a personal quality............something that Mitt would have inside, to draw on, no matter what line of work he was in.
(Another one is greatness, and for my money, that's even rarer and more difficult to pin down. Only one Prez in my lifetime had it and we don't need to ask which one....)

I haven’t encountered any politician yet that gave me the impression they could push their way through a crowded club, without worrying about offending someone, or having a large security force around to provide the glares that make drunken people move without saying a word.

When a group of people want to get from point A to B on a packed floor in a club, they get behind a blocker, form a line, and move with the motion of the crowd as holes open up. The move can be made tactfully, but still have a purpose. Such traits don’t make anyone a good politician; in fact it would result in them losing votes over likeability.

(Another one is greatness, and for my money, that's even rarer and more difficult to pin down. Only one Prez in my lifetime had it and we don't need to ask which one....)

I don't think anyone would have said Reagan was going to be a great president at this stage of the game, when he was losing in the polls. It wasn't until after the debates that he gained in the polls. The test of a great president is in his performance on the job and so I don't think that even after the debates people would have been identifying Reagan as a great president. Making such a call at that early stage in the game would be like giving a president the Nobel Peace prize in the infancy of his presidency. I remember meeting someone riaght after Obama was elected who told me that Obama was a genius and would have the economy fixed in no time.

Mackenzie I see your point but to me, greatness is an inner quality. It's not a result or performance.
The more I learn about Reagan the more I am convinced that he had it from a very early age.

That's true but I still don't think people would have identified it at an early stage in his run for the presidency.

Well, did the debate tonight prove to you that Romney has plenty of "testosterone" for the job, while The Obmessiah stared at his podium like a scared and petulant little girl?....

It certainly proves that on that night, on a stage, he had more than Obama. Probably the altitute . . . .