Where's the Mitt?

   Despite what seems obvious, there's just no "it" in Mitt [as in Romney].
   The not-so Stormin' Mormon seems to be a bit of an odd duck; inscrutable, without a doubt.
   While Willard appears to be clean, rich and white, there's an unspoken underlying suspicion as to what is driving him to seek the presidency. [I hate to say it but I think the suspicions surround his religion, which very few comprehend].
   Romney has had impressive success and if you 'have it all' already, why would you want to trade such 'a wonderful life' for the problems of a presidency? Can it really be just ego or is it to fulfill some 'spiritual calling'?
   Only Al Snore was a bigger bore than Gov. Romney and we know what happened to him.
   On paper Mr. Gore had a huge advantage over George Bush and incredibly lost. It shouldn't have even been a close vote in 2000, even with Nader's presence [who, of course, gets the blame for the Gore team's ineptitude].
   Enough voters simply could not bear the thought of having to watch Gore every single day for [at least] four years; he simply exudes the charisma of an uncomfortable pasty robot.
   While Romney certainly looks better than Gore on TV, there's nothing spontaneous about the man: no fizz, no drive, no fervor.
   Where is 'it' Mitt? Without the 'it' he is simply "Mmmmm" and that is not enough to unseat a charismatic like Big Barry.
   All things considered, it looks like a second term for the Chicago/Harvard junta unless pump prices reach $5 a barrel this summer and unemployment rates start rising again.
   Regarding economic inequality [again a big hindrance for the GOP 'front-runner'], I can sense the growing distaste of the average American for those who have money to burn.
   While card-carrying members of the "99%" may barely register on a radar screen, most Americans would agree that the 'dream' is rigged against the middle class.
   Cooling my heels in a doctor's exam room recently, I picked up a Forbes Inc., magazine with a cover shot of a sweater-wearing, trust-fund pretty boy who's never worked a day in his life.
   One of the teaser cover headlines was: 'Ten watches for under $10,000', and I'm thinking,"If you can afford a $10,000 watch then you probably already have a minion who keeps track of your time."
   And, "If you can afford a watch that costs more than $10,000, then time has no bearing: the party doesn't start until you arrive anyway so what the hell do you need a freakin' watch for?"
   Or, "If a watch costs $10,000, why does price even matter, other than to be able to use the pick-up line: "Hey, baby, I may only be hung like a stud hamster but my watch cost $10 grand."
    I suppose the more self-aware may muse, "Oh, yeah, my shallowness needs an esteem boost with a pricey, perfunctory accoutrement."
   Whatever the ad's message may be, I think by the time Mr. Obama finishes spending a billion dollars to get re-elected and moneybags Romney spends his own fortune, we're all going to be primed to eat the rich.