Wednesday, November 28, 2012

I'm FED UP with those who say Romney didn't relate with the average person

Do you mean?

He didn't relate to them because he's successful?

He didn't relate to them because he believes in serving others without any fanfare or credit for doing so?

He didn't relate to them because he donated his entire inheritance to BYU and made his millions on his own?

He didn't relate to them because he gives 13+% of his earnings to his church and charities?

He didn't relate to them because he is married to the same woman for 40+ Years?

He didn't relate to them because there were no personal scandals in his life?

He didn't relate to them because he raised 5 sons who never saw the inside of a jail?

He didn't relate to them because he doesn't have a underage daughter who got pregnant or on birth control?

He didn't relate to them because he believes in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay?

He didn't relate to them...........

If those folks can't relate with any of the above, What's that say about the average person? I suggest maybe they need to examine their own lives...Just sayin.

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.


Anonymous said...

I think middle class people who think Romney isn't relatable would probably feel superior if they had a lot of money themselves; hence, they think Romney himself feels superior because of his wealth. And that's something for which there is no evidence, considering all his given of himself to charity, public service, and his own family. So, people who think Romney is not relatable are just struggling with their own insecurities or feelings of inferiority.

People shouldn't feel that way, though, and should just feel as comfortable with the poor as they do with the rich.

Also, Romney may seem a little uppity at times, but that is only because he is a perfectionist. You can tell he always tries to do the right thing, whether it's how he presents himself or how he behaves personally. He's not trying to be better than anyone, but he just believes there is a certain way to do things.

Romney's like what kids in school call the teacher's pet. But the teacher's pet doesn't study hard to impress anybody. Rather, the teacher's pet studies hard to give the best of himself.

Paul said...

The "not relating, not connecting with average people" comments and public sentiment have been a fabrication from the beginning. I will refute forever, any argument that Romney had anything wrong with his personability or likability, as Bosman has so adeptly illustrated above. So where did all this come from? Not from anyone that we can respect, but from Democrats desperate to nip Romney in the bud, before the average American came to know him first-hand. Why? Because, among potential nominees, Romney was the most threateng to their plans. Unfortunately, this false characterization of Romney, by Democrats, proved to be popular among some bigots among our side as well. Since Romney was more conservative than Reagan had been before their respective conversions, then I do not accept the argument from some supposed conservatives (who were actually bigots) that Mitt was "not conservative enough." Even if they came around to supporting Mitt eventually, many of them dragged him through the mud with false allegations for the duration of the primary process. There were also some hold-outs who took a chance that second-term Obama damage might not be irreparable, and unbelievably, stayed home on election day. Those among us conservatives who were not able to view Romney through an objective lens, and thereby contributed to a false public characterization of him, and/or declined to vote for him, know who they are, and will be hanging their heads in shame. They also can carry the dishonor of having been manipulated by the Democrat strategists that hoped for them to be such tools. They gambled with our Country's future for the sake of their own prejudices, and they lost.

Paul said...

correction: threatening

Anonymous said...

Bosman,, here!

Anonymous said...

Bosman - no reason to get "fed up," it's nothing personal. Obviously, Romney's biggest supporters are going to feel differently about it. Obviously, Romney inspired you, and you held his personal life in high regard, but not every voter... AVERAGE AMERICAN VOTER, knows everything about Romney and I can honestly say that I don't remember his campaign highlighting that part of his life too much.

I really don't understand why one "negative," yet truthful, comment about Mitt Romney inspires such outrage by the Romney supporters?

The FACT is this, Romney has a $300 million dollar net worth - most people don't.

It's hard to relate to a person who is that wealthy and a lot of average voters want to relate to their President.

Sure they might relate to him with family values, but unfortunately, in this economy the, oppulent, image of his car elevator won out.

There's no reason for his supporters to run around blaming Republicans who didn't vote for him like it's some type of cabal.


Right Wingnut said...

Well said, JR.

The Democrats wanted to run a "class warfare" campaign. I would argue that they didn't have a choice, given how effed up everything is right now. They couldn't have asked for a better candidate to run against. They did a marvelous job of portraying Mitt as Gordon Gecko on steroids.

Right Wingnut said...

That is not to say it's Mitt's fault that he's worth $300 million, but it is what it is. It obviously hurt his candidacy.

Right Wingnut said...

Add that on top of his poor campaign strategy, flip flops, playing footsie with Obama in the third debate, and you get what we now have...another 4 years of fending off Socialism and praying for the health of several aging Supreme Court Justices.

Right Wingnut said...

Obama and Romney to meet at the WH on Thursday.

That's mighty big of Mitt to be willing to sit down with him.

I'd tell him to get F----d.

Anonymous said...

It's not about this at all. The fact is: Obama was an incumbent which is an advantage and he was willing to give out crap. Romney kept talking about all the things he was going to take away. Whether he was likable or not is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

I've met people who are

Rich and humble

Rich and arrogant

Poor and humble

Poor and arrogant

Mitt is rich and humble.

If most Americans can't tell the difference, then they are already missing something spiritually. And you get consequences and results like Obama who is arrogant egomaniac.

Katrina L. Lantz said...

JR, George Washington had quite the estate himself.

Americans didn't always despise the wealthy. We used to aspire to success. The campaign played out just as I wanted, a stark contrast, a decision between two economic ideologies. The problem was the Obama campaign refused to engage in a substantial debate about it and kept pointing to social issues like gay marriage and birth control ??? Nobody wants to take away birth control. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it." -K

Right on, Bos! That's the Romney I came to know and respect through his op-eds and testimonials from people who actually met him. Primary sources, always best. The sooner the masses learn that, the better.

Anonymous said...

Okay, everybody here is right. The entire electorate held Romney in high regard. They respected his wealth, and his family. They knew he was the best choice...


Then they voted for Obama.


Socrates said...

Maybe the 'point' Bos is trying to make is that the majority of American's didn't relate to Romney because the majorities lives are in the toilet and don't represent anymore the values most here hold dear.

Hence the Obama win.

Anonymous said...

Socrates, I understand his point. I just disagree with it. I am still allowed to disagree, aren't I?


newark hawk said...

Former presidents FDR & JFK were never accused of being out-of-touch with ordinary Americans, despite being two of the wealthiest presidents in U.S. history, and despite having inherited their wealth rather than earning it themselves, like Romney did.

Get with the program, folks: if you have a "D" after your name, you're completely in-touch with the average Joe, no matter how privileged and filthy rich you happen to be.

But if you have an "R" after your name, you're completely out-of-touch with the average Joe, no matter how hard you worked to acquire your money.

That's just the way of the world when one political party monopolizes the public airwaves, while the other political parties send up smoke signals to communicate with the electorate.

Accept it, deal with it, live with it, because it sure ain't gonna change unless we first change the rules of the game - the media game.