People see what they want to see with Obama. He's someone who is very likable and personable. When you project your hopes & dreams onto him, you're doing it because he has the ability to connect with JUST YOU - unlike most politicians who are so disconnected from the people.

Romney, though, is a BLANK SLATE in the sense there is nothing there. You can't project anything on him because he doesn't seem human. He seems fake - plastic, if you will.

Alexander

(15,318 posts)

8. There's also a similarity.

Reply to Drunken Irishman (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 5, 2012, 10:02 PM

Feb 2012

Both Obama and Romney were much further to the left on the political spectrum in the 1990s than they are now.

We all know about Romney's flip-flops on every single issue out there.

But let's also remember that in 1996, Obama signed a questionnaire saying he was in favor of banning handguns and single-payer health care, and he was 100% opposed to the death penalty. As late as 2004 he was publicly saying that the War on Drugs was a failure and that he not only supported medical marijuana, but decriminalizing marijuana in general. He has changed his position on all of these issues since.

Regardless of how likable each candidate is (and I do agree Obama is much more charismatic, authentic and personable), there have been questions about what each of them actually believe when it comes to certain issues.

For example, I saw many threads on DU recently where people were optimistic Obama would "evolve" on gay marriage and openly support it in his second term.

Now, does that mean Obama has always been against gay marriage and is only now starting to change his mind? Or does it mean Obama has always supported gay marriage, and merely pretended not to so that it wouldn't cost him votes in 2008 and 2012? Republicans are asking these same sorts of questions about Romney, although I think you and I agree he would say anything if he thought it would win him some votes.

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)

10. Problem is, most any politician is going to change some of their stances over the years...

Reply to Alexander (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 5, 2012, 11:20 PM

Feb 2012

Some for political reasons, some for personal reasons.

That hardly makes Obama or Romney similar - unless you're suggesting they're similar to most anyone who's run for president.

Alexander

(15,318 posts)

11. It's hard to see someone as a "blank slate" if they've stayed consistent on the issues.

Reply to Drunken Irishman (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:52 AM

Feb 2012

My point is, the reason both Obama and Romney are "blank slates" is precisely because both of them have changed their positions on several issues throughout the years. There are still debates on DU - and throughout the country for that matter - about whether Obama is a liberal or a moderate, and whether Romney is a moderate or a conservative.

On the other hand, someone like Rick Santorum is generally not a "blank slate" - he hasn't shifted on the issues much in his career, and people who know who he is generally see him as a right-wing conservative.

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)

12. I think you're confusing the two...

Reply to Alexander (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 03:29 AM

Feb 2012

Romney isn't necessarily a blank slate because of his views. He's a blank slate because he lacks emotion...he's like a robot. He has no emotion. He has a blank face - not necessarily a slate. He's a robot. No emotion...no anything. Just a machine who'll do and say anything to get elected. He's like Michael Myers - a blank, emotionless face.

With Obama, whether his ideas evolved or not, you know he has emotion and understanding and empathy. That is the point.

Alexander

(15,318 posts)

13. Not really.

Reply to Drunken Irishman (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 06:46 PM

Feb 2012

Both Obama and Romney are blank slates. Obama even pointed out he was, in the quote above.

"He's a blank slate because he lacks emotion...he's like a robot. He has no emotion. He has a blank face - not necessarily a slate. He's a robot. No emotion...no anything. Just a machine who'll do and say anything to get elected. He's like Michael Myers - a blank, emotionless face."

That is a subjective opinion, and one not shared by everyone.

The point is in 2008, different groups saw Obama as "one of them" and came to support him based on their own projections of what they thought he would do when elected. Liberals saw Obama as a liberal based on his record from about 1996-2004ish, and moderates saw Obama as one of them based on his record from about 2004 onwards, plus his general theme of national unity. You could easily cherry-pick different parts of Obama's career to make the case that he's either a liberal or a moderate.

As I pointed out, we are still seeing the "blank slate" situation with Obama, with many progressive DUers optimistic that he'll turn sharply to the left after the 2012 election.

It's very similar with Romney. Many pro-business moderates see Romney as "one of them" based on his record from the 90s until about 2007, when he left office. Many conservatives are seeing Romney as "one of them" based on his statements and positions from 2007-present. Again, depending on what case you're trying to make, you could cherry-pick parts of Romney's career to make it seem like he's either moderate or conservative.

I'll grant you, much of the Democrats' support for Obama was legitimately for Obama, since he's an inspiring, charismatic speaker with a compelling life story. Much of the Republicans' support for Romney seems to be against Obama rather than for Romney, grudgingly accepting Romney as the only shot they have of defeating Obama. But people of differing ideologies who support each of these men continue to project their own beliefs on to them.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and I in fact agree with your opinion of Romney. I just think the main difference between what you and I are saying is that your argument is mainly subjective in nature whereas mine is mainly objective.

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)

14. No...you really are...

Reply to Alexander (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:10 PM

Feb 2012

There is a huge difference between people projecting their views on you and sensing you're emotionally removed from reality. You can try to debate the similarities all you want - but the overall point you're making just doesn't compare. Romney isn't a blank slate. He's not someone people project their thoughts and ideas onto like a wall.

And no, my point isn't subjective. Look at the polling - Romney is so far and away behind Obama when it comes to understanding personal issues that I think it proves my point. He can't connect with voters.

What you're doing is trying to compare apples & oranges. They're not comparable. People do not look at Romney as some inspirational figure they can project their emotions and feelings onto like it was with Obama in '08. They see him as someone who is nothing. There is a difference, unless you think Obama is the type of politician who is robotic and lacks empathy.

I do not. In the end, your argument isn't even in the realm of what we're talking about. You're trying to compare Romney today to Obama in '08 and there is absolutely no comparison. Obama's problems in '08 were not that he seemed robotic or fake or absolutely nondescript. If anything, Romney is about as nondescript as you can get for a politician. He looks like a politician built in some lab somewhere. Like I said, a robot.

I think that's what the OP is referring to. But for some weird reason, you're trying to bring this back to Obama. You can't. And shouldn't.

Alexander

(15,318 posts)

15. There's really no need for you to be this argumentative.

Reply to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:23 PM

Feb 2012

We just have a difference of opinion. Let's end it there, remember that we are both on the same side, and please don't tell me what I should or should not be doing. Thanks.