"I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States," fretted Chris Matthews, analyzing the second debate performance with James Lipton, the "Inside the Actor’s Studio" guy.
Why not have an acting expert analyze the performances? It is theater, isn't it? And, if it's theater, how does Obama play the role of the President, and how does Romney play the role of The Man Who Would Be President, speaking to the man who is President? How to embody presidentialness, when presidentiality currently resides in that other man, who's treading the boards with you?
I don't know why Matthews dragged in some half-assed law stuff when he had the acting expert there. Bring on a law professor if you want to do that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
91 comments:
Obama deserves to hear YOU'RE FIRED! GET OUT and GOOD RIDDANCE to BAD RUBBISH.
Matthews is half-assed.
That is state of the art retarded thinking coming from Matthews.
If you are wrong, obviously you want to be wrong to the guy who is NOT an expert, or even super-knowledgable, about what you are wrong about.
If Chris has the constitutional law guy in front of him, that's when he'll point out why Romney's body language and voice tone was "offensive".
In both cases, his guest can then give Chris a puzzled look and say, "OK, I guess so, whatever...."
Pretty simple, actually.
Shit, you're right, Chris Matthews. Romney has completely forgotten the eleventeenth amendment, the one about deference and respect to your betters.
What a gaffe.
The debates are where reality meets propaganda: theater for them, stark reality for us.
Chris Matthews is a parody of himself. Trying to figure him out is easy.
'The Stink of Desperation(tm)hangs around Mathews head like a cloud and influences his every thought.
Mr. Matthews,
Presidents also don't say "I won" at their first opportunity to talk to the opposition party.
Presidents also don't rip on Supreme Court justices during a State of the Union.
Presidents should also never give a grown man a tingle up the leg.
Some really priceless comments at the link!
Chris Matthews: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
Chris Matthews: He is your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for him.
Chris Matthews: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did he become king then?
Chris Matthews: The Lady of CNN, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft a transcript from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that he, Barack Obama, was to live in the White House. [singing stops] That is why he is your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- Strange women sitting at a podium distributing questions is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical town hall ceremony.
Chris Matthews: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart defended you at a debate!
Chris Matthews: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had kept interrupting my opponent for me they'd put me away!
Chris Matthews: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Chris Matthews: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
Chris Matthews: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Nah, that's so 2008-ish.
If Mathews had a quarter of a brain he would be eight times as smart.
Zero is entitled to all the deference and respect he has earned in the last four years which is exactly zero.
Why hasn't the Left pulled out a Dean Wormer clip yet...I would have.
Also, this scene came to mind. Chris Matthews in the Dom Deluise role.
I have no love for this president, but while this was going on, I did think that Romney ought to have at least tossed in "Mr. President" a few times.
Obama referred to Romney as "Governor"; repeatedly referring to the sitting President as "you" seems disrespectful, no matter who it is.
No, Romney was not feeling the tingle. Only abject deference bordering on worship allows that.
This is a job interview for a future term that Omaba does not yet hold. It's about time someone challenged him.
So that's why Obama doesn't hold press conferences--it's unconstitutional to question him.
"Matthews is half-assed."
Gotta disagree. Nothing half about his asininity.
Remember when it was cool to demand accountability from a President?
ROFLMAO.
Matthews' is some beltway beta, he like the dance critic don't understand that debates are between equals, who must win on arguments and presence. Obama, Crowley and Matthews think the rules should somehow be different for 'incumbents?', 'affirmative action candidates?', 'leftists?'
When the President sits across a table from Putin, does that mean that Putin wins automatically because he's more leftist? (i know there is doubt), or Obama, because his tan in darker?
or maybe one has a strong will and better arguments?
I think we all know who would turn away from a stare or bow ;)
Wow, though. First the dance critic now the theater guy. This really is an election about the arts. Maybe a parade of puppets will win this election.
President is an elected position, not a bloody patent of nobility.
He's hired help, just like any other politician.
Part of our problem is too many people damn-near bowing when they say 'REPRESENTATIVE Kickback' or SENATOR Leghorn'. We should get back to "This is John Kickback, currently our representative"; stop acting like being hired for that job confers a higher status.
CNN has issued a talking points memo to all staffers to defend the Crowley beast at all costs!
One bullet point in the memo suggests that Zero gets more time in the debates because he talks slower!
(sarc)
Yea! That's the ticket! The SCOAMF really IS a SCOAMF!!
Yea CNN! Yea democracy!!! Yea Zero the first!!!
(/sarc)
You mean to tell me Romney didn't kiss Obama's Allah is hot stuff ring? Unconstitutional!
Firehand Johnson is right.
So when Romney is president, will it be illegal for the press corps to interrupt him?
Inga must have emanated on Matthews copy of the constitution.
I thought the left liked that "speak truth to power" thing - at least when Bush was in office, they did.
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Nah, that's so 2008-ish.
Oh, it'll be back in fashion again. In about. . .20 days. In fact, I expect our locale cadre of Obots already have their Mittler's not MY president! T-shirts on order already.
The stink of desperation on the Right. Who cares if Mittens is rude and forgot he is not talking to his butler. Chris should be more concerned with the incessant lying that is going on from the newly minted, shiny righty Mitt. One thing to pander to the nutcases to stir up the base, another to just sit back and lie like a preacher. When snitty mitty tries to sell the same old snake oil to the rubes who support him, fine but when he tries to peddle that nonsense to people who actually walk upright its another. Voodoo economics failed under Reagan, it failed under Bush the Lesser and it will fail, if given a chance, under Mitt the Liar.
We have reached the point where we need affirmative action debates. Marvelous. What's next? Quotas for the presidency?
"I don't know why Matthews dragged in some half-assed law stuff when he had the acting expert there."
Because Mathews is sometimes a douche?
This "got to respect the president" thing just blows my mind.
I mean... seriously?
It's like the eight years Bush was president never happened.
Voodoo economics failed? God bless Reagan. He made me rich. Speaking of voodoo economics and Magical Thinking and Cargo Cults, that sums up the last four years and if Zero is reelected that will be the best case scenario.
The stink of desperation on the Right. Who cares if Mittens is rude and forgot he is not talking to his butler.
Funny, I was under the impression that the President - like any government sleazebag - is a "public servant." In other words, Mitt's EMPLOYEE. Just as he is yours and mine.
And the charge of rudeness is rich coming from a representative of the party that considered throwing a shoe at Dubya to be an act worthy of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Paddy O, That's a perfect reference up thread. It was funnily relevant to Mathew's position with every line.
"You don't vote for kings."
I will respectfully disagree with "tingles". Obama has no more right to the office than does Romney, and giving him undue deference because he currently holds it would unfairly disadvantage his opponent.
Obama was trying to talk over Romney, as his VP, Biden, had done so famously and constantly with his opponent the week before. The moderator, if anything, was helping him. No one was going to help Romney there, if he didn't help himself. So, he did, and we get the result that we are discussing in the other thread, Obama coming across as being dominated by Romney, and, possibly losing the election as a result.
This "got to respect the president" thing just blows my mind.
I mean... seriously?
It's like the eight years Bush was president never happened.
Absolutely, synova. It's why I can't take fools like pragmatist, garage, AF, Ritmo and the like seriously. They would literally argue that black was white if a Democrat said so.
If the President is being a rude douche bag and not letting the other person speak, then the President deserves to be told to shut the fuck up. Romney just did it in a polite way.
And Matthews, nothing in the Constitution states that the President gets to be treated like the Son of Heaven in the Middle Kingdom.
Would Matthews be happy if Romney took a bow before dear leader?
"Mr Tingles" has long ago crossed over into clown territory. He has the lowest rated show on MSNBC, which is saying a lot.
Should Romney be elected, and Chrissie's show cancelled, I'd love to see Matthew's application for a journalist's White House pass turned down on grounds he is no longer considered a serious journalist.
Matthews would like a constitutional amendment declaring it blasphemy if Republicans do not properly bow, grovel, wilt and wither in front of progressive rulers.
Voodoo economics failed? God bless Reagan. He made me rich. Speaking of voodoo economics and Magical Thinking and Cargo Cults, that sums up the last four years and if Zero is reelected that will be the best case scenario.
I find it interesting that the left seems to truly believe that if the continue to call Reagan style trickle down economics as voodoo economics, that it will make it less effective. Instead, we now have trickle down big government and trickle down poverty.
Of course, they have no choice. Obamanomics doesn't work. Can't work, and never will work. It is based on a number of false premises, the most important being that man is not greedy, and will not change his behavior based on the incentives at hand. Oh, and that the best and brightest can plan the economy and society better than the rest of us can collectively through independent action and free markets. (Assuming that they could get the best and the brightest working for them, which they can't, as long as there is more money to be made in gaming and beating the system).
Thin gruel indeed from Mr. Matthews. Full-on panic mode.
Kudos to PaddyO, btw, for referring to two of my top 5 movies. Could you work in a Groundhog Day reference too?
This is one of the great things about having a Constitution that's a living document. If you want it to prohibit lèse majesté, it can.
It's like the eight years Bush was president never happened.
Just because they were utter jerks doesn't mean we should be.
So, he did, and we get the result that we are discussing in the other thread, Obama coming across as being dominated by Romney, and, possibly losing the election as a result.
Probably don't need to, but to further clarify, we see the "talking over" constantly on cable news shows. It is an attempt to dominate the opponent. We saw a fairly egregious case of this with Biden at the VP debates. He tried to dominate Ryan, and to some extent, did by being a total ass. Some pundit predicted that Obama would do the same at this last debate, but at a lower level, on the theory that Biden had pushed the envelope so far, that a less egregious attempt to partake in this behavior would not come across nearly as badly as if Biden had been more civilized.
The problem is that talking over someone in a debate is essentially cheating, and that strikes a lot of people as being both being mean and being unfair. I think that women, in particular, often respond negatively to this sort of tactic - every one getting their fair share of talking is important to many women.
Men, on the other hand, are used to stronger men having more say and time to say it than weaker ones. So, for them, it wasn't the fact that Obama tried to cheat, but rather, that Romney was willing and able to deny him this, that matters more. That made Romney the alpha, and Obama the beta, at least in those interactions.
Pat Buchanan did an analysis on the Libya coverup a couple days ago. While Buchanan is certainly not lovey-dovey on Romney because Romney is too in bed with Israel -Firsters and the Neocons for Buchanan's tastes, the old hand still does some fine analysis on why Obama is worse:
His read on the cover-up and the most likely conclusion on why the Obamites lied:
As for Rice, someone contacted those five TV networks to put her on. And the party line she delivered — the opposite of the truth — had to have been fed to her, almost word for word — by Donilon or the chief of staff.
Could Donilon or Hillary have been in the dark about what Rice was going to say? Could they have still been in the dark about what had happened five days before in Benghazi, when Hillary’s own deputy Charlene Lamb had followed the terrorist attack in near real time?
Hillary and the entire Obama national security team are in that famous photo with Obama watching Seal Team Six in Abbottabad when Osama bin Laden was taken down.
Was the National Security Council alerted by Lamb when she was observing the attack in near real time? Did the NSC also observe?
Was the president told by the NSC that we were getting real-time intel and video from Benghazi, and would he like to see?
There is an even more fundamental question:
Why did the White House persist with the phony story of a protest against a video being the cause of Ambassador Stevens’ death, when they had to know there was no protest?
The most plausible explanation is that the truth — we were being hit with the worst terror attack since 9/11 in a city we saved — would have exposed Obama’s boasting about his Libya triumph and al-Qaida being “on the run” and “on the path to defeat” as absurd propaganda
It just seems so unecessary.
This Libya stuff all happened back when Obama was in a solid lead and cruising to reelection. It was before Romney's "turnaround" debate in which everything changed - though no Obamites seemed to have any fear back in early October that Obama would do so bad, Romney so good.
It was like a 2nd rate break in at Democrat HQ in the Watergate building 40 years before when Nixon was a lock, and the coverup..
Just so unecessary.
Now you see the Left, including Chris Matthews, his veneer as an "objective journalist" long since utterly vaporized, in hysteria.
Part of that is fear that the Libyan coverup just won't go away - no matter how many times they say "It is something that will be carefully investigated for a few years, then the public will see the Heroes of FBI law enforcements conclusions....but until then Republicans must shut up".
No, sorry, "Mr Tingles", the coverup will be a factor in the election and not swept under the rug.
Huge mistake by Obama and Crowley to keep the issue alive. For Obama not to have buried it as well for the White House and Rice as Hillary buried it on the State Dept side by saying they messed up security.
It could be that confessing failure to consider better security within State is a lot easier than sorting out and explaining or even taking responsibility for the White House -directed coverup it was a major Al Qaeda attack.
Memo to Chrissy Matthews: Leghumping the President is unprofessional behavior--it's unseemly and could leave stains.
You don't question Mussolini, or Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin... at least when they ran their countries.
BUT, Obama you sure as heck can question. This is AMERICA, not Russia, or China, or Nazi Germany.
Gad, Matthews is a stupid jackass who REALLY doesn't 'understand the Constitution'.
Chris Matthews would only be happy if the interactions between Obama and Romney (not just Romney but anyone not aligned with the godhead)were equivalent to the famous scene between Kirk (Obama) and Pike (Romney) in Star Trek's "The Menagerie". It was a cult classic where where a mute, dis-figured and immobile Captain Pike was trapped in a motorized wheelchair. He could hear but was unable to respond except by blinking a light once for "yes" or twice for "no". Oh! How Kirk (Obama) talked and talked and preened and pranced! And all Pike (Romney) could do was blink!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/STMenagerie.jpg
Because law professors are experts at half-assed law stuff.
Titles of nobility ought to figure in.
Cedar, this is why I think the "video" meme went along for over two weeks, long after the truth of the matter was known and out in the media.
In the debate, I think Romney did make a tactile mistake by insisting that Obama never called it a terrorist attack, an assertion easily proven false through press transcripts that he did in fact say it was an "act of terror". Now Obama might not have singled out the attack as "terrorism", but the verbiage is close enough. Romney's mistake helped lessen the effectiveness of the criticism against Obama in this regard.
I've found some lovely filth!
Thanks, Paddy. Everything is better with a little Dennis the Peasant.
Chris Matthews and the rest of the servile progressive steno pool really should be rooting for Romney. He's their full employment act. Think of all the lying liary lies that will automatically justify their "journalistic" existence if Romney wins. Why, MSNBC might actually get more than 20 viewers.
Romney did just fine.
I'd have wanted to tell the president to shut the fuck up for once; he's been hectoring us for four goddamned years, now it's his turn to listen.
Oh, and i don't mind Crowley offering up the confirmation that Obama did say it was an act of terror. We live in the internet age. Why not have the mod note when a statement by a candidate is proven to be not true. Of course, the item would have to be an obvious falsehood (as in the Obama Rose Garden "terror" remark) and not based on an opinion, such is the case of most economic issues. And the mod would have to call both sides out on obvious untruths when they appeared.
Me: It's like the eight years Bush was president never happened.
"Just because they were utter jerks doesn't mean we should be."
True.
It's the scope of it, I think. People were "utter jerks" to and about Bush all the time. The funniest thing in the world was when someone threw a shoe at him. Am I right?
Obama gets elected and it's not a case of "utter jerk" it's the audacity of two words "you lie" or something like this with Matthews, not even an active insult of any sort but simply a *failure* to be properly deferential.
Oh, but it's *different* because Bush was evil and Obama's not? But we're scolded that "he's the president" so we're supposed to be respectful? No. Just, no.
So now the theme is "incessant lying."
Mr. Obama's supporters can't decide if his motto should be "You lie!" or "It's someone else's fault!"
What a fine leader.
Hahahahaha!! Could Matthews get any dumber and still find his way from his home to the studio? Doesn't he know the Constitution says you can't disparage challengers to the incumbent in presidential elections?
MM,
Also, this scene came to mind. Chris Matthews in the Dom Deluise role.
BING!
Chrissy forgets about that Revolution we had 250 years ago.
He still thinks he's part of the ruling class.
It's definitely wrong to say "You'll get your chance" to Obama. Wrong tense.
"You've had your chance" is grammatically correct.
One wonders if Matthews really believes that the Constitution entitles the President to deference generally - or if he only thinks that when it's a Democrat holding the office.
Or if he just has no idea what the Constitution says about pretty much anything.
(I;m betting on the latter.)
Poor Matthews cannot get a good angle to slay Romney from. So he brings in a method actor coach to create a New Reality in hopes that Humpty Dumpty Obama's pieces will come together again.
The only thing no Dem and no Obama minion ever considers doing is to try out speaking the truth.
Chris Matthews had the president of his dreams elected overwhelmingly in 2008, with Democrat majorities in both houses sufficient to totally ignore the Republican party on their way to remake the United States according to the latest Progressive theories.
And it's been a disaster. Chris is crying for the failure of his beliefs and the coming repudiation of all that calls itself "Progressive."
Me: It's like the eight years Bush was president never happened.
"Just because they were utter jerks doesn't mean we should be."
True.
It's the scope of it, I think. People were "utter jerks" to and about Bush all the time. The funniest thing in the world was when someone threw a shoe at him. Am I right?
Obama gets elected and it's not a case of "utter jerk" it's the audacity of two words "you lie" or something like this with Matthews, not even an active insult of any sort but simply a *failure* to be properly deferential.
Oh, but it's *different* because Bush was evil and Obama's not? But we're scolded that "he's the president" so we're supposed to be respectful? No. Just, no.
Synova, phx made more or less the same argument a while back adding later on that he found conservatives presuming he was an asshole before even speaking to him when they learned he was a liberal. I'd offer Tingles and your own thoughts about Dubya as to why those of us on the right might immediately think the worst of those on the left.
I hear the argument all the time that "we're better than the Democrats. We can't stoop to their level." If the Democrats held to any sense of principle in their opposition, I would agree. But the past 12 years have disabused me of any such notion. True, politics ain't beanbag and slander has been with us since Washington's second administration, but giving the left a free pass only encourages them.
I wouldn't go entirely eye for eye - for example, even I think it would be too much to respond to a Sandra Bernhard's Sarah Palin ought to be gang-raped by some big black brothas the next time she's in New York with Hillary ought to be shoved into a plastic shredder - but rudeness like Biden's should be met with rudeness and utter liars like Pelosi should be publicly shamed for their lies. A Candy Crowley should be told "Don't worry, you'll get your check from the DNC. Now take off your kneepads, wipe your chin and shut the hell up."
If Democrats get punched back twice as hard each time they pull a Crowley, a Biden or a Reid, then perhaps - perhaps they might throttle back their obscene rhetoric and their blatant bias. As it is, whining that we need to take the high road only serves to embolden them.
It'll be amusing to see Chris Mathews have a stroke or choke on his own bile on set when Obama loses the election. I don't normally go for death porn but I'd watch that.
On Jan 20, 2009 Obama was sworn in as president. Afterwards, George W. Bush boarded the presidential helicopter to fly into retirement. Many people in the audience started chanting, "Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, Goodbye."
When it's Obama's turn to fly away, we should just flip him the bird.
That's how Romney talks to everyone. he is not used to being challenged; it's why he got so flustery and stumbly and bumbly at the last debate; it's why Gingrich gave him fits, too. His world is one in which everyone just does what he says: he doesn't "ask questions," he makes "statements." He is most virtuous, he knows best. Period.
But the problem is, whenever Romney is in a situation with others who will not cede to his preferred mode, he's lost.
Progressives genuinely believe they know more than everyone else.
Haha.
But the problem is, whenever Romney is in a situation with others who will not cede to his preferred mode, he's lost.
You might want to ask Matt Amorillo about that.
That's how Romney talks to everyone. he is not used to being challenged;
You really think that the Dem majority in the MA legislature never challenged him when he was governor? Really?
OTOH, Obama has got to be the most thin-skinned president ever. And that shows clearly in these debates: How dare you criticize my foreign policy?
The point is he diminishes all social and political contexts to the one in which he is most comfortable: all situations are Board meetings, and he is always Chair. Sort of the obverse of the obsession with "Chairs" we saw on this website, in fact.
It's fucking laughable; but it is typical of people who have their whole lives gotten their way, so he cannot be uniquely blamed for this.
And no, I do not think when he was Governor that he handled it well at all, when he was directly confronted on anything.
BING!
So Obama is Ned Ryerson? LOL. Or is Matthews?
I'll just picture (1) Romney punching Matthews and Matthews spinning around, or (2) Romney hugging him and asking if he can change his plans.
(laugh)
When it's Obama's turn to fly away, we should just flip him the bird.
That'd be so right!
I think harrogate's trying to be funny by switching Romney's name for Obama's.
Is that Harrogate, TN, BTW?
harrogate: "His world is one in which everyone just does what he says: he doesn't "ask questions," he makes "statements." He is most virtuous, he knows best. Period."
LOL
harrogate is a parody of a typical alinsky-ite.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2012/09/03/did-the-new-york-times-just-get-obama-fired/
snip: "Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted."
LOL
More on point observations:
http://politicker.com/2012/10/obama-boasts-of-his-appeal-among-toddlers/
snip: "I do great with the 2-3 year old crowd,” President Obama joked."
That explains harrogates support for obama right there.
Actually Chris, you DO say just that. Here, the president isn't nobility or something. He is a citizen like any other who has been given a job with responsibilities. He is not a god-king due special deference and worship.
Even more insight to obama's extraordinarily high self-regard:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3413377&page=1
snip: "At a closed-door, off-the-record meeting with media mavens and corporate titans at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan Tuesday evening, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the freshman senator who just three years ago was an Illinois state senator, said he had better judgment about foreign policy than any presidential candidate in either party."
Yep.
That obama really is one humble fellow.......
LOL
Here, the president isn't nobility or something. He is a citizen like any other who has been given a job with responsibilities. He is not a god-king due special deference and worship.
Green is a heretic and blasphemer.
caseym: Just because they were utter jerks doesn't mean we should be.
I agree with CaseyM -- Mr. Romney had an opening "he" that would have been more gracious as "the President", and so on.
Besides, "Mr. President, you suck" leaves just as big a mark as "You suck".
President Obama deserves exactly the respect he gave to President Bush. Which is less than zero.
There's a reason presidents are supposed to act presidential.
MadisonMan-
Could you work in a Groundhog Day reference too?
I would reference the Andi McDowell "seduction" scenes...
It seems like he is doing a awesome job (from the appropriate drink, to French poetry, until the snowball fight.).
Then, it all goes bad- (See Nov. 4, 2008)- and every scenario after that ends with a slap in the face.
Harrogate "His world is one in which everyone just does what he says"
Sorry, but we were discussing the real Romney, not the one inside your head.
I was going to say that Chris Matthews is angling to be Chief Lick-spittle in Obama's royal court, but given his infamous "tingle up my leg" swoon it's not spittle. :-)
You know... people should expect to do what the boss says to do. The boss should expect everyone to do what he or she says to do, and to do so with good will and honest effort.
Expecting that and expecting it as a given is called being an executive. It's your JOB.
And it's just weird to see someone speak as if this is on one hand and the other hand is listening to employees and others and the two are some sort of opposites.
Romney wouldn't be successful if he didn't listen to others. He goes into a meeting and he knows that everyone there is smarter than he is in their subject matter. That's why he has meetings. That's why anyone has meetings. It's only Obama that thinks he knows more about everything than his staff does!
The military is the classic "Yes, sir. No, sir. How high, sir," situation and every last officer knows that the men and women they are giving orders to know more than the officer knows about their subject matter, down to the fresh E-2 and his radio.
Romney may very well be the Chair in every situation and the world he inhabits may well be "...one in which everyone just does what he says".
But only prejudice and unthoughtfulness would conclude that this means he only makes statements and never listens.
Chris' utterance is entirely consistent with the lib view of a living constitution.
Post a Comment