I Need to See a Mitt About a Horse

Stay with me on this: U.S. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a wife (quiet with the Mormon jokes). His wife, Ann Romney, has a horse. This horse, Rafalca, competed in the Olympic Games in London in the event of Dressage. Liberals are making some political hay out of this. Barack Obama hasn't approved any messages or anything, but there's at least been some snickering from people who think Dressage is a weird, aristocratic holdover. And of course, there's something to that point of view; the event doesn't test speed or strength or agility, but just the horse's ability to perform a predetermined routine (And thus, the rider's ability to train them). The rider wears a top hat and tails, and the colloquial of "horse dancing" really isn't too far off the mark. If the Romneys enjoy that, the line goes, then they're hopelessly out of touch with "real" Americans (and I rather suppose the fact that only Ann Romney is into it doesn't matter; most of us aren't in a situation where it means anything if one spouse "owns" something and not the other).

There's no doubt that this is kind of silly. Frist of all, we here at the Left Field Line firmly believe that everyone has a right to like the sports they like without judgement (though I'll admit that animal-based sports make me a little uncomfortable; story for another time, though). Second of all, what the fuck is a "real" American, anyway? And third, it's not like Mitt Romney's ever going to face a Dressage-related crisis in office. He's not going to have to decide between giving Dressage owners a tax cut and children health care. Similarly, Barack Obama is never going to have to decide whether or not to declare war on an arugula-producing nation; these just aren't relevant factors to the Presidency.

 But y'know what? It's not entirely silly. The fact is, we do need to know about a President's personality. If we know his personality, we know his decision-making process, his cognitive biases, his priorities. And in some ways, that's more important than, well, his policies. Presidencies almost always get swallowed up by unforeseen (and unforeseeable) events; think George Bush and 9/11, or Obama and the Tea Party. How they respond to those things is just as important as the plans they run on. But we can't know how they'll respond to those things, because they are, by definition, unforeseen.

So, we try to figure out a President's personality during the campaign. But, personalities are necessarily ephemeral, especially when we can only judge them through the filter of a campaign and the other filter of the media. So, we have to go on clues. What books do they read? What music do they like? Do they work out? How do they treat their family? And yeah, what sports do they like? Hopefully, we can put all of that information together and get a halfway decent composite sketch of the man.

Of course, Rafalca doesn't tell us anything about Romney we didn't already know. Oh, he's "out of touch"? His horrific tax plan told me that, to say nothing of his statements about being friends with NASCAR owners and thinking income inequality is about "envy". But it's all of a piece with this backwards-ass mindset, and it displays that mindset in a more visceral way, and as such, is kind of illuminating about Romney. Rafalca becomes a sort of political short-hand for all of Romney's bad policies and dumb sayings. That's fine; sports function as political symbols all the time. But we shouldn't mistake Rafalca, in and of herself, for a reason to vote against Romney, just a reminder of all the very good reasons to do so. Anything else is just unfair to Rafalca. And C'mon. She's an Olympian, for Pete's sake.

Presidents and Sports

Mitt Romney appears to be determined to get on this blog, despite my certainty that he's never even heard of it. As you may have heard, Romney was again asked about sports, and again put his answer in terms of his friendship with owners. It's worth asking how much we need to keep grilling Romney about sports, but in this case, I think we're stumbling toward a useful topic, perhaps in spite of ourselves.

I don't really have a problem with Presidents being friends with sports owners. Aren't they all? Obama is friends with the Rooneys in the NFL. George Bush WAS an owner. Successful men get along with successful men, I guess, and that's fine.

The problem is, Presidents really can intervene in sports, even if they really, really shouldn't most of the time (George Bush's steroids crusade was just...worthless). And if they do so solely on behalf of their buddies in ownership, that's no good. Owners are no more likely than any other stakeholder in sports (players, managers/coachers/GMs, media, and yes, fans) to know what's really best for the sport, and their interests really need the least amount of protection.

So, Romney's answer is useful inasmuch as it tells us if he would or would not take Presidential action on sports, and if he would do so on behalf of the owners. Right now, that "inasmuch" is not much; while Romney seems to think about sports in terms of owners, he doesn't really seem to think about sports much at all, so it's unclear if he'd actually do anything about them as President. But of course, the question wasn't really about anything Romney would do to sports as President, so we shouldn't be surprised that the answer doesn't hit that nail on the head, either.

Either way, I want to know more. We never really saw Goerge Bush's steroids crusade coming, and I'd hate to see a replay of that. For that matter, I'd hate to see quite a bit of Presidential action on sports (Obama's support for college football playoffs also makes me a little itchy, even though he hasn't really done anything about it). So, I think this is worth further exploration. I just hope that future questions are little more on point.

99% of the Country's Sports Fans Are Awkwardly Pandered To By 1% of the Country's Politicians

Okay, so, I saw Mitt Romney's Ford Field thing from last Friday, and I kinda ignored it, because there wasn't really much to say from a "progressive sports fan" perspective besides "LOLZ, STAGECRAFT FAIL." I figured that Mitt Romney and this humble blog could just go our separate ways.

Then Romney had to go to Daytona.

At Daytona, Romney was asked if he follows NASCAR, and he said:

""Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners."

Jesus Christ, that's a tone deaf answer.

Look, I think that "Can this candidate speak coherently on sports?" is a TERRIBLE criterium to use in picking a President. And I say that as a big fan of Obama, who's probably the most cognizant of sports of any President in recent history. "Does he follow the same pop culture touchstones I do?" is pretty much equally bad, even if you just consider that a roundabout way of asking, "Does he get ME?"

But faking an affinity for the sport just makes the whole thing so much worse. And it makes it worse for the candidate, too, because we can always tell when he's faking it...and he usually ends up saying something clueless and out-of-touch like Romney did there.

Yes, plenty of politicians have made political hay out of their love of sports. Obama doing his bracket on ESPN, Bush throwing out the first pitch- and forever sullying- at my beloved Busch Stadium. But those guys had real passions for the sports. Bill Clinton never said anything memorable about sports (you'd only even know he was a Cardinal fan if you read his book, and OH GOD IT'S NOT WORTH IT). John Kerry tried to talk to some Packers fans when Wisconsin was a swing state, and he ended up saying "Lambert Field."

So, the bottom line, candidates: don't fake the sports love. We see right through it every time, and that's worse for you than just admitting you don't know much about the sport. Because, actually, "Is this guy just a big phony?" is a fine criterium to use.