One of the best descriptors I’ve run across in relation to Mitt Romney is ’empty.’ The context in which I found it was at Dibgy’s place in this remarkable posting that epitomizes Mitt’s very emptiness – his very lack of substance.
In describing a protest during the ’60s where the Stanford administration office of the president was being held hostage by anti-war protesters, a group of counter-protesters, describing themselves as supporters of the university president as well as anti-communist (war supporters) had the opportunity to meet Mitt, who described himself as “having some experience with the press.” [Interpretation: I’m a self-seeking bullshitter who will get my picture out there for your cause even if I don’t believe in it. Even at 19, he had it down.]
And then there were the chickenhawks. They were neither part of the revolution nor did they take the obvious step of volunteering to fight the war they supported. In fact, due to the draft, they allowed others to fight and die in their place despite the fact that they believed heartily that the best response to communism was to aggressively fight it “over there” so we wouldn’t have to fight it here. These were empty boys, unwilling to put themselves on the line at the moment of truth, yet they held the masculine virtues as the highest form of human experience and have portrayed themselves ever since as tough, uncompromising manly men while portraying liberals as weak and effeminate.
Empty boys …. who grow into empty men – empty…. soulless.