"The Choice 2012" A PBS biography

 
 

This two hour production was aired on Wednesday 9 October, 2012.  It was a thorough look at the two men.  I was not comforted.

Romney emerged from this portrait as a self obsessed businessman who wants the presidency as a prize, a symbol of accomplishment in a life dedicated to personal accomplishment and devotion to a church that he avoids discussing.  He has a very exalted view of himself as does his wife.  In one revealing incident recounted in the production, Romney and his wife met with a group of Iowa Republicans in Boston just after he left the State House.  One of the Iowans asked hard questions.  Ann Romney was so incensed at this that she rose, left the room without a word and did not return.  What does this say of the imperial  presidency that might emerge from a Romney victory?  The tale of his always shifting policy positions makes it clear that he is through and through a businessman.  Policy positions mean nothing in business.  Only profits have meaning in business.   If you think that you know what a President Romney might do in a crisis with regard to any issue, you are probably wrong.  In any situation he will sum up his personal "balance sheet" and act on that basis.

President Obama may not be strong enough physically and emotionally to suffer the "blows" that would be his portion in another four year term.  Look how much the man has aged in the last four.  His road to power was a tortured path in which he survived and prospered by his wits as he moved from one elite eductional institution to another in search of identity.  Listenng to him speak to the camera as president of the Harvard Law Review is revealing.  IMO, at that point he was still a white man in a somewhat black skin and his black colleagues on the Review thought the same.  His body language, diction and vocabulary selection were not "black" at all.  It took his deliberate "voyage" into the bosom of his wife's family to achieve what is at least a plausible public persona as a black American, rather than just another mainstream American.  If he is elected, Republican obstructionism will continue unabated.  He is a sensitive, intelligent soul.  He looks exhausted, used up.  pl

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice-2012/

Comments

[TWV]

IF (and this is a big IF) Obama is "sensitive and intelligent", is that the kind of person we want in this high pressure job requiring a fair amount of ruthlessness and quick mental footwork?

Although..... Obama HAS shown a propensity for throwing people under the proverbial "bus".

As for a PBS "documentary", ask Juan Williams how objective PBS is.

[jr786]

In this corner, the Challenger - the Honorable Mayor of Hadleyburg.

In that corner, the reigning champion - the man that Othered himself.

Would that they both would lose.

[Margaret Steinfels]

Your analysis is what I'd call bipartisan with a soupcon of clear-mindedness about our two choices!

[turcopolier]

TWV

PBS is on the left. Of that there is little doubt, but I think this was quite even handed. pl

[William R. Cumming]

PL nails it down tight in this post IMO! The voters will have to vote against not for either man! The destruction of good men and women by campaign contributions from out of state and out of country has destroyed the competence of the USA political leadership and now vultures will be feeding on the corpse.

Tragic and the single institution most responsible is SCOTUS filled with ego and hubris that ignores the aphorism "we are not last because we are right, but we are right because we are last"! Narrow academics and practicing lawyers and not broad gauge men and women.

With over 60% of all federal programs, functions, and activities clouded from disclosure even from oversight by classification and need to know doctrine the Imperial Presidency reigns supreme.

[Ben]

Politics require compromise to achieve your ends. Obama's sensitive willingness to buckle to pressure (preemptively compromising w/the Teahadists in negotiations over the budget, not confronting the neo-conservatives and Gen. Petraeus in 2009 over Afghanistan) has disappointed me.

Romney's business-like willingness to say whatever his audience wants to hear (abortion, health care mandates, bailouts, tax cuts, slavish obeisance to Bibi, bombing/invading a multitude of countries) and then say the exact opposite a few weeks later seems like the ultimate in focus on the bottom line. That is, if you focus on weekly profits, rather than some longer term.

[Tyler]

The Republican Party blasts itself into oblivion through its insane globalism, neocon world domination plots that seem ripped out of "Protocols", outsourcing American jobs while importing as many illiterates as possible in an insane belief that somehow a mezteca will vote (R) if they just explain the free market in Espanol, and above all the desire to not be seen as 'rayciss' by the main stream media while it pushes the average white majority to the margins.

The Democratic Party is a barely held together coalition of the disgruntled who think they are owed something, espousing a child's philosophy/religion where somehow sexuality is genetic but gender is fluid and that IQ and racial differences are social constructs and the real issues are racism, poverty, and 'white privilege'. They seek to gift their supporters with as many gimmedats/benefits as possible, sucking the cash out of people in the name of the greater good to continue insane policies that have only sunk minorities into a deeper morass of infantilism. They serve the same globalist masters that want to invade the world/invite the world/and be in hoc to the world, killing for Israel in the name of 'democracy' (as oppossed to Christian Zionism) while shoving as many minorities who will be reliant on them into the country to create a new electorate.

Basically our choices come down to Jack Johnson or John Jackson looking to run a culture who's main concerns include going into debt for electronic toys and the lives and scandals of the ultra rich or ultra trashy (or both at once) while continuing the same insane policies for different reasons (Mammon v multiculturalism).

We see the signs of anarcho-tyranny (illegal aliens don't get fined/towed for driving w/o a license while the majority pays a $500 fine for speeding) and our insane policies push gas up past $5/gal while the elite drop money on a high speed rail line from Nowhere to Noplace.

My only consolation is that the phoenix must die before it is reborn. So be it. Let the gyre widen.

[Cliffiord Kiracofe]

Does the present situation as summarized above lead us to consider the problem of an "Imperial Presidency"? Lack of checks and balances?

Has our country slid too far in this direction? Has Congress allowed too much usurpation of its powers by the Executive?

What about the role of various institutions in government, civilian and military?

If we perceive the country is in some form of crisis at the moment, economic, leadership, and otherwise, then would it be wise for the next president to make an extra effort to reach out on a more bipartisan basis for cabinet selections, for example?

At the Cabinet level, would it not be wise to introduce one or two or whatever adult Democrats? Try for some bipartisanship and national unity in such polarized times?

In a Romney win scenario, perhaps the idea of advancing the "national interest" as a "profit-motive" might be workable. Let's say adults step in to help him and make him "look good" on foreign policy.

On the foreign policy front, why not dump the Neocons and reach out to adults to include former presidents and other experienced leaders for advice? President Carter might have some good advice the Middle East and China. President Clinton may have some ideas in various areas. President G. H.W. Bush might have some ideas for China and other areas. Henry Kissinger might have some wisdom to offer on China, in particular. Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar would have some wisdom to offer on Russia and other challenging issues, and so on.

Congress needs to take more serious responsibility for real oversight in foreign affairs and other matters and serve as a check and balance rather than as a rubber stamp or booster of adventurism and unnecessary war.

An "Imperial Presidency" focusing everything on one fallible human being is not our tradition of Constitutional government of "checks and balances."

It is interesting that Romney has selected normal, experienced, and capable Republicans like Bob Zoelleck and Rich Williamson for transition responsibilities. To me, this is a very good sign and something that can be built on if Romney should win. Such appointments, and the signals they send, are noticed in capitals around the globe as the world scrutinizes and weighs the coming weeks and what comes thereafter.

[The beaver]

Colonel

was it aired last night ? because today it is wednesday October 10th.

Thank you .

[Charles I]

Four more years of Republican obstruction, or four years of Republican triumphalism, and your country may well be exhausted, used up.

[Laura Wilson]

I'm going for the American man whose allegiance is not to globalized profits. Both candidates represent differing but entirely American profiles. As I see it, the most problematic quality and set of expertise(s) that Romney has is his financial (NOT business) experience...especially internationally.

I want a person as President whose 1st thought every morning is for the USA...NOT his bottom line. But I do fear that Romney's constituents are the global financial sector.

Yes, the job is using up Obama...maybe those of us who do vote for him should speak up to our representatives more often and help him out.

[Medicine Man]

This is the kindest thing you've written about President Obama. I hadn't considered that being re-elected might destroy him though. This is a disturbing thought.

[Fred]

Juan Williams managed to parlay a long career into a couple of million dollar payout and a new career in a politically driven TV business. Kind of reminds me of Romney's profit calculation. Juan's surely better off by a couple of million dollars.

[alnval]

Col. Lang:

Thank you for reminding us of the Romney's (both Mitt and Ann) sense of entitlement. There is no noblesse oblige in them at all. I sense more that they believe they have been "chosen" and as such their behavior should not be subjected to public criticism or complaint. "Divine Right" is close to it. Too close for my comfort.

[mo]

Speaking of tv and slightly off topic, the reason why not all Arab Springs are equal?

http://www.infowars.com/former-reporter-amber-lyon-exposes-massive-censorship-at-cnn/

[Matthew]

Tyler: Thank you William Butler Yeats.

[ked]

Col, Great analysis - you have (indirectly) convinced me to go with the incumbent - thanks. A privledged, prize-seeking theocrat who measures value first in $$$s is the more dangerous candidate. And (these days, especially) the role & impact of his circle of fellow-travellers & their behaviors among the devolving GOP is even scarier... Citizens United is the law they love (participation in gov as a commodity). The Dem's fellow-travellers in the Exec Branch (& DC in general) are more likely to be disorganized & incompetent (their graft is retail, the GOP's wholesale). So, as the MD sez... "first, do no harm"...

[r whitman]

Tyler, much as I respect some of your opinions, you need to find another country. This one is not going to change to suit your needs, even with a grass-roots transformation.

[Patrick D]

"He looks exhausted, used up."

I've thought this of every president in my lifetime. The change is noticeable as their terms pass and looking at "before and after" pictures can be shocking.

BHO strikes you as particularly spent, Colonel?

[elkern]

Every president who takes the job seriously, at least. GWB & Reagan did the fun parts & left the hard parts up to others (Cheney, and ???), so they didn't age as much as the presidents who try to live on four hours sleep for several years.

[turcopolier]

Patrick D

IMO this president brought a lot of personal and emotional "baggage" to the office, more than most. he tends to see himself as a salvational figure and his inability to obtain Congressional cooperation is killing him. pl

[ked]

Not so sure about salvation... I've always thought of him as a process-oriented guy who believes in being a good father (esp in light of not having a father present in his life)... to his daughters, the nation and all in-between. Note his affinity to Lincoln... it ain't just 'cause of Emancipation. thus, I blow off the bs about how radical & destructive he is to "core American values" - those assertions reveal more about the source than the subject.

[turcopolier]

ked

You don't think Lincoln saw himself as a salvational figure? Was it a pragmatic process oriented act to wage a four year war that tore the country with wounds that have not yet healed? In 1862 Lincoln counseled black leaders to go to Africa if black Americans were liberated. If Obama is a "process oriented guy" why does he hold himself aloof from the process of engaging with Congress, foreign leaders (not just bibi)and the general running of the government. I am informed that many in the campaign are concerned with a belief that he has quit in place on them. pl

[different clue]

Didn't Juan Williams have his problems over at NPR rather than PBS?

[Al Spafford]

Tyler, Your frustration is felt all along the spectrum of political observers. Does it all boil down to a choice for the "lesser of evils" or to abstain with one's vote? As your critique above on the Dems was 2x as long as with the Repubs, would then the "lesser of evils" be a vote cast for Romney?