David Brooks reaches. And reaches. Also, the Romneys.

Leno was funny again, so let’s start there:

“Mitt Romney, whose father was born in Mexico, is now talking up his Mexican heritage. Not to be outdone today, Newt Gingrich said he once cheated on one of his wives with a woman named Juanita.”                                             – Jay Leno

David Brooks wrote an Onion-worthy column about Mitt Romney the other day (find yer own link!). The case he made – I should say the absurdist case he made  (if I read it right) –  is that Mitt’s a man of character and persistence because his great-grandfather suffered bigotry and ridicule and poverty and had to move a lot and even had to hide two of his wives sometimes when the neighbors got restive. And that makes the descendents strong and forms their character. Unlike any of our ancestors (except for that wives part).

My favorite line:

Romney seems to share his family’s remorseless drive to rise – whether it’s trying to persuade the French to give up wine, or . . .

Seriously? Very Islamic of him.

Agreed, they are a persistent clan. No one could deny that. His own father was a Governor, ran a huge company and ran for President, just like Willard. But Romney the Elder was born in Mexico –  how could he have been considered a candidate? Anyone know?

18 responses to “David Brooks reaches. And reaches. Also, the Romneys.

  1. If Romney the Elder had become a serious contender, the issue of his lack of “natural born” citizenship would have become an issue. I’ve had to quote “natural born” though since we don’t actually have a proven, consistent basis via legislation or court precedents to claim that Jus sanguinis AND jus soli are required to be a natural born US citizen and eligible to be POTUS.


    • It’s always been my understanding too that a president must be born on US soil, not just of American parents. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was I think a US protectorate? And somehow that was okay.

      But it’s not really been tested yet. But I still wonder why Romney would even have tried to launch a campaign. Neither he nor any supporters would have been ignorant of the law.


      • Yes, that’s been most people’s understanding but it’s not backed up by any legal definition of such a thing.


        • I think it went into the Constitution because they wanted to avoid any royal sympathizers from sitting at the head of government. Kind of understandable for the time. I don’t think there’s a reason any longer for that to apply.


          • I’d still be concerned about someone of foreign upbringing being in a key role in our government. The conflict of loyalties might be problematical.

            But upbringing and birth are two different things…


          • That’s a pretty good example, actually, though I wholly approve of the creation and continuance of Israel as the Jewish State.

            My approval pf the specifics aside, Kissinger’s loyalties were obviously conflicted. How much worse would it have been if he’d been POTUS.

            Hellfire! Would any of us be here if a Russian dissident exile had been POTUS during the cold war? Or a Cuban exile?


          • In recent years, I’ve come to believe Sen. Lieberman is seriously conflicted. I’m from CT and loved the guy as AG and in his early years as Senator. When he got too hawkish, the Dems didn’t renominate him so he said “:screw my old party, I’ll run as an independent and the Republicans will vote for me”. And he did and they did. Since then I’ve started to see old Uncle Joe a little differenently and in recent years it seems he listens more to AIPAC than to his constituents. .


  2. Ms. Holland ,

    How desperate are you to destroy Romney as a threat to President Obama that you bring up this nonsense ? The pickins must indeed be lean . You should stick to branding him as an evil rich oppressor of the 99% . Newt gives you more ammo, doesn’t he ?


  3. Ms. Holland ,

    You are part of the Obama collective . Separately you do not do much . Together, you got a beginner elected President . That’s mucho power .


    • You found me out. I am indeed of the Borg. And ‘resistance is futile’.


      • No, resistance isn’t futile as the 2010 Congressional Midterms showed.

        And it can even be satisfying to do so, especially when you see the enemies agenda collapse around their proverbial feet. 😆


        • Opposition, adversaries, yeah. Not enemies. This is an enemies-free zone.

          I think this is the most confused I’ve ever seen the Republican Party. It’s like the Dems in the 60’s when, first, the Southern Dixiecrats left the party enmasse and switched to Republican, and then, later that decade,. the party nearly split in half over war/social policies etc. The Dems are still suffering from perceptions formed in the late 60’s/’70’s. The Republicans look the same to me today – the old circular firing squad.


          • It’s not a game so it can’t be the opposition; it has to the enemy. I’ve never harbored bad feelings toward the grunt in the other side’s uniform though, at least not just because of the uniform.

            And you’re right about the current GOP. They’re struggling to adjust to having a strong streak of conservatives nominally in their ranks for the first time in a very long time.


          • Opposing counsel in Court are not enemies, they are adversaries. Or more accurately, they are advocates. Advocates for different views.

            So maybe neither adversaries nor opponents is sufficient to describe the diffefrent political philosophies of the right and left – better to say each ‘advocates’ for their philosophy.

            But opponents or competitors might be the right word for internal party disagreement as they in fact compete for supremacy.

            Or maybe I’m splitting hairs. But I really dislike saying ‘enemies’. My conservative activist neighbor and I are not enemies in any way. We cooperate on many things including local politics. But we hold different political beliefs. He’s not my enemy.

            If he’s my enemy, it’s a deadly business and leads to violence.


    • Although this comment wasn’t directed at me (well, I guess in a way it was–I’m part of the Collective too) I have to congratulate you on that nice barb of “Separately you do not do much”. You are quite the witty man, Alan 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s