Perhaps last month’s front-page, fact-packed, 1000-word story about Mitt Romney’s hair, from The New York Times’s Michael Barbaro and Ashley Parker, struck you—as it did us (and apparently Slate, which has nominated it as one of the dumbest news stories of the year) as a little too voluminous for its subject.
But, then again, maybe Romney’s naturally buoyant, mousse, gel, and purportedly dye-free mane (cut for a mere $70 when Romney doesn’t give it a trim himself) really does matter to the electorate.
Per Shushannah Walshe’s story about a focus group of young voters in Iowa at ABC’s The Note blog:
He then asked if anyone liked Romney, which received a lukewarm at best, negative at worst reaction. The former marine who was in Iraq during the last cycle and is now a student immediately responded, “I just can’t stop thinking about his hair.”
The 26-year-old stay-at-home mom from Des Moines agreed. “You can’t trust a guy with immaculate hair,” she said. “I don’t feel like I can trust him, he seems too smooth … I’ve heard something about businesses going bankrupt and all the people lost their jobs. I don’t know anything specific about it, but we are trying to get jobs.”
The Mormon thing seemed to bother them less. According to Walshe, none of them will even consider voting for Romney.
Romney has already won, among Billionaires.
http://www.billionairechronicles.net/romney-beats-newt-wide-margin-billionaires
#1 Posted by Gerry Senker, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 11:36 AM
Romney should put their minds at ease with something humanizing, perhaps a joke?
"How do you keep your hair perfect like that?"
"Well, let me put it this way. Have you ever seen 'There's Something About Mary'?"
#2 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Sat 10 Dec 2011 at 12:37 AM
"I’ve heard something about businesses going bankrupt and all the people lost their jobs. I don’t know anything specific about it, but we are trying to get jobs.”
What does that even mean?
#3 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 06:38 PM
hardrada asked: What does that even mean?
padikiller eludidates: It means that this underinformed woman is trying to get a "J O B". For those of the even lesser informed "occupying" persuasion (who can no longer be called "commies" under Pravda's.... er, I mean CJR's new comment censorship policy) a "J O B" is a process that creates wealth, as opposed to smoking weed, banging on drums, chanting, or "twinkling", all of which destroy wealth.
People who have a "J O B" go there on a regular basis to do "W O R K", using their labor to produce some desirable product or service in exchange for money.
When the people on the street tell you to get a "J O B" instead of bumming cigarettes and singing all day, this is what they mean.
Hope this clears things up.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 08:31 PM
It doesn't, Padi. I still don't see how that has anything to do with Romney.
I know what a job is; I have a much, much better job than you ever will.
My question is: why doesn't this woman like Romney? She said she doesn't trust him but doesn't really explain why.
#5 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 10:35 PM
I think that saying Romney is "too smooth" pretty much sums up most of the objections to him.
He's a liberal in GOP clothing and he'll say anything to get a vote.
Conservatives don't trust him.
One thing I think the pundits misunderstand is the public's overwhelming aversion to Obamacare - which is fairly accurately cast as an overgrown clone of Romneycare. The Tea Party arose to fight Obamacare and subsided after it lost the political fight. But those people haven't gone anywhere and they are highly motivated and extremely politically active. When it's time to fight, I expect you'll seem them out in force again.
I predict that this year's GOP convention will be one where the debate over the party platform will perhaps be more contentious than the nomination of the candidates.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 09:20 AM
A lot of people say the Republicans are cool to Romney because the Tea Party doesn't like him even though he's the "most electable." But really, is he that much of a sure thing compared to Gingrich in a general election? Kathleen Parker wrote today that Romney's "the candidate who can beat Obama" or something to that effect.
I agree that he doesn't really seem trustworthy; even if he believes the stuff he says, he certainly doesn't sound very sincere about it on the stump. When he tries to show "candor" in face-to-face exchanges with voters, it always seems forced.
Regardless of the health care thing... I think the Republicans just aren't sold on the "electability" thing because after all, Romney already tried running and couldn't beat McCain in '08, he never ran for re-election as Gov. of Massachusetts. It's not like he's a universally beloved or respected politician. Gingrich has flaws as a candidate, but is he really that much less "electable?"
#7 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 09:51 PM