conservative media folks slay me with their portrayal of Romney being of the people. I really don't see how one can not look through the manufactured image he is portraying. a representative leader isn't just someone who is acting executively on behalf of a given populace, that person's decisions are based upon the fact that they are FROM the people, ergo, their decisions need to REPRESENT the People...cumulatively.
which leads me to this post's title: Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan live in socio-economic bubbles. their math is a mystery to their most staunch of supporters, Romney represents the most upper crust of our society and their supporters (especially the blue collar and retirees) are following their platform seemingly on belief/likeness, not reason.
above all else any one elected to executive branch is also a member of the citizenry he/she is elected from. Electoral College be damned, red and blue states be damned, elected officials are beholden, accountable, & therefore answer to the citizenry.
let's say Romney loses the election: what do you think he will go back to doing? will he go back to living a life of corporate autocracy or will his newfound socio-awareness and heightened public status lead him on a tour of the country finding ways to financially balance the American populous? what did Ross Perot do after the 96 elections? what has either Bush done? what did carter, gore and clinton do? (well, clinton not so much)
in my opinion, the burden of citizenry leadership is a social accountability stemming on the fact that, when your term expires, you return to being a member of that citizenry, so the platform that got you in office should reflect in the behavior & efforts post-office. being positively engaged in your community is something that should occur naturally, not to collect votes, and only one candidate in the unfortunate "two-party" system does that.
which leads me to this post's title: Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan live in socio-economic bubbles. their math is a mystery to their most staunch of supporters, Romney represents the most upper crust of our society and their supporters (especially the blue collar and retirees) are following their platform seemingly on belief/likeness, not reason.
above all else any one elected to executive branch is also a member of the citizenry he/she is elected from. Electoral College be damned, red and blue states be damned, elected officials are beholden, accountable, & therefore answer to the citizenry.
let's say Romney loses the election: what do you think he will go back to doing? will he go back to living a life of corporate autocracy or will his newfound socio-awareness and heightened public status lead him on a tour of the country finding ways to financially balance the American populous? what did Ross Perot do after the 96 elections? what has either Bush done? what did carter, gore and clinton do? (well, clinton not so much)
in my opinion, the burden of citizenry leadership is a social accountability stemming on the fact that, when your term expires, you return to being a member of that citizenry, so the platform that got you in office should reflect in the behavior & efforts post-office. being positively engaged in your community is something that should occur naturally, not to collect votes, and only one candidate in the unfortunate "two-party" system does that.
