The Secret to Success

The only real secret to success is that there is no secret.

A few years ago the world was all agog over a book called The Secret.  It pretended to reveal a secret that had driven all of the world’s most successful people.

In brief, it suggested that you can become more successful by imagining yourself successful. For a population that already places too much faith in the power of thought, it was catnip. And for a population that believes that reality must follow the dictates of its fantasies, it was like speed.

Credit where credit is due. The book and its attendant visual and auditory aids was a feat of marketing genius. By now everyone should know that it preyed on our extreme gullibility. But it also demonstrated how averse we had become to the notion that we might actually have to work in order to succeed.

It was much more appealing to think that we needed but improve our fantasy life.

But when you fantasize about how rich you are going to be when your new invention becomes a household name, are you engaging in what we call “positive thinking?”

According to Heidi Grant Halvorson the public discussion of positive and negative thinking is seriously inadequate. Happily, she offers an excellent clarification.

If positive thinking means that you are optimistic about your ability to reach your goals, that is a good thing. If positive thinking means that you believe that you will be able to reach your goals by imagining that you have already reached them, that is not such a good thing.

Similarly, if negative thinking tells you that you have never accomplished anything and never will, then it not your friend. But if negative thinking tells you that you are facing a daunting challenge and will have to work hard to achieve it, then negative thinking will work to your benefit.

For my part, I would not call see the latter kind of thinking “negative,” but that is neither here nor there.

Halvorson is trying to show people how to succeed. She begins by showing that if you imagine that you have achieved your goals without having achieved them, the image will make it much less likely that you will succeed. .

She explains: “ [Psychologists] Kappes and Oettingen argue that when we focus solely on imagining the future of our dreams, our minds enjoy and indulge in those images as if they are real. They might be reachable, realistic dreams or impossible, unrealistic ones, but none of that matters because we don't bother to think about the odds of getting there or the hurdles that will have to be overcome. We're too busy enjoying the fantasy.”

If we act as though the fantasy is real, as though the wish were realized, we are going to feel like we’ve been drugged.

We will experience the enjoyment that comes with success without having to put in the work, and without having achieved the success.

How do you get to success? Halvorson explains that you have to do it one step at a time.

In her words: “In fact, study after study shows that people who think not only about their dreams, but about the obstacles that lie in the way of realizing their dreams--who visualize the steps they will take to make success happen, rather than just the success itself--vastly outperform those who sit back and wait for the universe to reward them for all their positive thinking. Whether it's starting a relationship with your secret crush, landing a job, recovering from major surgery, or losing weight, research shows that if you don't keep it real you're going to be really screwed.”

Success lies in methodical, tedious step-by-step effort. Cognitive psychologists have known this ever since Aaron Beck confronted a depressed patient who could not get out of her bed. She said that she could not walk to the door. Beck asked her if she could put one foot on the floor. Then he asked her if she could put a second foot on the floor. And so on.

The new research suggests that she might have had difficulty walking across the room because she kept imagining herself as having walked across the room.

And of course, let’s not overlook the genius of what are called 12 step programs, where an alcoholic or other addict is led to overcome his addiction step by step.  

They are clearly more effective than asking him to imagine himself enjoying the fruits of sobriety.

Steps involve work, often hard work. And people are more motivated to work when they feel that they are facing uncertainty. That is, when they do not feel that they are guaranteed success.

Halvorson reports that research shows that: “people who imagined an uncertain and challenging future reported feeling significantly more energized, and accomplished much more, than those who idealized their future. “

Does the same rule apply to the grand philosophical debate between idealism and realism?

At a time when the media in this country seem to believe that their task is to present the world as they would like it to be, especially in sitcoms and docudramas, ought we to conclude that their traffic in feel-good images is really making it that much more difficult to achieve the goals they have set out?

Sluts Galore

Jessica Wakeman wants us all to know that there are different kinds of sluts. There is a whole variety. Take you pick. You don’t have to settle for just one.

In fact, Wakeman identifies five different kinds of sluts.

Proud slut that she is, Wakeman is discomfited by the possibility that you might mistake her good kind of sluttiness for the bad kind that some other women are displaying. I suspect that Wakeman is thinking that these bad sluts are giving sluthood a bad name.

In some circles this passes for serious thought. I am going to review it because otherwise when I criticize feminism you might think that I am attacking a straw woman, a mere caricature.

In truth, feminist thinking is much worse than even I imagine. I could not have made it up.

If it was just there for the entertainment value, that would be one thing. But since Wakeman pretends to offer something like moral thinking, she is also trying to influence other women.

Wakeman insists that she is not being judgmental. It’s OK for her if some young woman wants to be the wrong kind of of slut. But still, as you read her descriptions, you discover that she is being rather judgmental.

More important for me is the set of principles that define good and bad sluts, or, should I say, healthy and unhealthy sluts.

Wakeman differentiates good and bad by intensity of sexual appetite and the ability to experience a lot of sexual pleasure. Desire and enjoyment are the criteria that distinguish good and bad sluts.

I am not surprised. These principles define the ethic of the therapy culture. If you really, really want it, you must do it. If you have any doubts about whether or not you really, really want it, your ability to enjoy it fully will answer the question.

As moral principles go, these are appalling. But, let’s look at Wakeman’s analysis, the better to see why.

Apparently, a slutty Wakeman and her slutty girlfriend have decided to use the term “slut” only when it has a positive connotation. I imagine that they learned this from the current folly called slutwalks.

Wakeman and her friend remind me of identical twins who have invented their own private and personal language, the kind that no one else can understand.

Wakeman writes: “This girl friend and I are always tongue-in-cheek calling ourselves ‘sluts’ because we love and enjoy sex and seek it out for pleasure the way that men do. ‘Why are you being pejorative about sluts all of a sudden?’ I asked her.”

Her girlfriend replied:“I’m not being pejorative about all sluts ....I just think there’s different kinds of sluts. I f**k guys because I like f**king. She f**ks them despite not actually enjoying it’.”

So, we have learned that some sluts like to have sex. And that they are doing what they are doing because they want to emulate male behavior..

I would add that when it comes to sex, Wakeman has one thing in common with men: she is not thinking with her mind.

Of course, if this view of male behavior is a caricature-- as I suspect it is-- then Wakeman has managed to make her behavior conform to a demeaning caricature of men.

Another demerit for feminism.

Wakeman has a right to pretend that she is a man. One wonders how she and her friends will feel when it dawns on them that they have been living a lie.

And what will happen when they discover that advertising your sluttiness on a popular website does not enhance your reputation or make you good relationship material.

One suspects that Wakeman’s attitude toward sex has something to do with the fact that she has taken herself out of the relationship market. If so, then her sluttiness is merely a compensation for a failure to form durable relationships.

In the meantime, Wakeman defines good sluts as women who want sex so badly that they will do anything they can to get it.

She says: “To my mind, this is the true definition of ‘slut’: a woman who loves sex and ain’t nobody going to stop her from getting what she wants! It’s not easy out there for a lady who loves sex. She’ll be tarred and feathered as ‘irresponsible,’ ‘greedy,’ ‘crazy,” and of course, a ‘slut’ in the pejorative sense....She’ll be astounded that other people have such a hard time believing that she genuinely just loves sex. Deep down she knows she has sex for her own pleasure — not any other reason — and that’s enough for her. But it would be nice sometimes if other people got it, too.”

What’s wrong with this picture? A lot. Wakeman does not differentiate between loving sex and loving the man with whom she is having sex.

She has nothing to say about relationships, which, as most people know, are often an excellent source of repeated sexual acts with someone you know and trust.

Her definition of non-pejorative sluthood is mechanical... to the point where one wonders why she needs a partner at all. Except perhaps for the ego boost.

Or, look at it differently. What if it should happen that a woman who really, really likes sex, and who really, really enjoys it also likes getting paid for it?

Surely, this does happen. What would Wakeman say about her?

Next Wakeman moves on to the bad sluts, the ones who are doing it for all the wrong reeasons.

First are those women who are hooking up too much because they think that it will improve their mental health. One suspects that Wakeman herself is embracing her good sluthood because she feels better about herself for getting what she really, really wants, and... by the way... getting off in the process.

Women who are not as healthy as Wakeman do it for the wrong reasons. For example: “One of the worst reasons of all is to sleep around because you think it will make your people like you. A lot of us figure out in high school, college, or right after college that just because someone has sex with you is no guarantee they like you, or even care about you. Sadly, there’s a fair number of women whose self-esteem is such a wreck that they’ll sleep around to try to feel better about themselves.”

Then there is the rebellious young woman who is trying to make a point about her independence or autonomy and who just wants to piss people off.

Wakeman describes her: “You don’t have to look much further than her repressed childhood and adolescence to see why this gal is putting notches on her bedpost. “Women are evil” and “sex is bad” are probably two of the teachings that she’s shaking off. Is it a good idea to rebel against Mom, Dad or Pastor Joe by sleeping with the entire state of Rhode Island? It’s hard to say. Maybe this is something she genuinely wants to do. Maybe this is something she’s just doing to piss people off. It’s best to assess rebellious sluts on a case-by-case basis. But to these sluts, I have to salute you for thinking for yourselves!”

One doubts that rebelliousness is sufficient reason for this kind of self-slutification, but Wakeman thinks it’s more-or-less OK, because, after all, she might really enjoy the sex.

I suppose that one can enjoy sex even when it is being performed for reasons that have nothing to do with desire. Wakeman thinks so, but she is wrong to say that these sluts are thinking for themselves. Their thought is a function of what their parents or communities believe.

It is neither independent or autonomous; it is purely a reaction to someone or something else.

And then there is another kind of slut who has just discovered what turns her or gets her off. Once she discovers this, it’s like she has just discovered a new toy and cannot put it down.

Wakeman explains: “Maybe this slut just came out of the closet. Maybe she just realized she’s into BDSM. Maybe she’s found a position that finally feels good. Or maybe she’s slept with a guy who is doing her properly for the first time ever. Whatever her case, she’s f**king because everything is shiny and new and she just can’t get enough! The novelty may eventually wear off ... but then again, it may not. And that’s OK, too!”

Of course, if everything's OK, then nothing is really OK. I will refrain from commenting on BDSM or any other assorted kinks. But one wonders why this slut should not be classed among those sluts who just really love sex. The fact that it took her some time to figure out should not disqualify her from being the kind of slut that Jessica Wakeman respects.

Finally, in the lowest circle of this slutty inferno, we find the woman who sleeps her way to the top of the corporate ladder.

Wakeman does not exactly approve. She does not even imagine that this woman can really enjoy the sex that is advancing her career.

She writes: “Sleep with your boss. Fine. I don’t care. (Actually, don’t. That’s such a bad idea.) But don’t sleep around just to climb up the ladder at work or social groups. Unless she can be really careful and separate the guys she f**ks for advancement from the guys she f**ks for pleasure, she is playing with fire. She may one day wake up and realize she’s slept with gross guys and didn’t even enjoy it but had ‘gotten ahead,’ while other women have advanced based solely on their professional merits.”

If we follow Wakeman’s principles, why would it not be the case that the woman who is sleeping with her boss really, really loves sex and really, really enjoys sleeping with him?

And why shouldn’t she go after what she wants with as much gusto as Wakeman pursues sexual gratification?

If, however, you were to say that sex exchanged for a promotion cannot really be gratifying because it feels like mutual exploitation, then you would also be saying that sexual pleasure has something to do with the quality of the relationship.

And that would be very inconvenient for a Jessica Wakeman.

Waiting for Rick Perry

If it’s not going to be Mitt Romney by default, someone will have to stop him.  As we were discussing a few days ago, Romney has, by default, become the front runner in the GOP presidential sweepstakes.

Yet, Robert Pearson sagely reminded us that it is far too early to start handicapping the race. Much can happen between now and the first primary. New candidates can emerge. Events can throw us more than a few hard sliders.

Mitt Romney is an Establishment candidate. He comes out of central casting, with about as much charisma as John McCain. At a time when the country and the Republican party is fed up with the Establishment, we keep hearing that he is the most electable candidate.

Many Republicans much prefer Michele Bachmann. She is more to their philosophical likings and has been fighting the Obama administration from its inception.

And yet, it isn’t a secret that Michele Bachmann is not going to be the Republican candidate. Most Republicans do not believe that she is electable or that she can raise the kind of money needed to run a national campaign.

I know that a lot of people are not going to be happy with that, but that’s how it is.

Given the general dissatisfaction with the Republican field, and given that Gov. Chris Christie is, in all likelihood, not going to run, that leaves the nation and the world awaiting the entry of Rick Perry, governor of Texas.

Right now, everyone believes that Perry is most likely to put an end to the feeling of inevitability that has come to surround Mitt Romney.

Perry is the only other candidate who brings electability and serious fundraising prowess to the campaign. He runs a highly professional, high disciplined political organization. He has solid conservative credentials in most-- though not all-- areas. Most importantly, he can run on a track record of job creation in Texas.

Perry’s record as governor is far better than Mitt Romney’s. He has far more political experience. He does not have a record of laying people off. And he does not have Romneycare hanging like an albatross around his neck.

In 2008 the American people took a chance on a neophyte, an untested and unproven candidate. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I doubt that they will make the same mistake twice.

The most electable Republican will be running on a record, not on gauzy dreams of hope and change.

Of course, if the conservative candidates splinter the conservative primary vote, then Romney might be able to sneak in. Those who believe that Romney would be a bad candidate should think in terms of coalescing around one candidate.

Today, the most likely candidate is Rick Perry. You need but look at the press coverage.

Time Magazine explained that Perry will create a force field in the race that will diminish a number of other candidates, especially Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.

Writing in the Economist, the Lexington column makes the case for Perry: “By comparison with the rest of America, which continues to languish in the doldrums, Texas is thriving. It is already the second most-populous state after California and is growing fast. Newcomers are attracted by the absence of state income and capital-gains taxes, cheap housing and, compared with most other parts of America, a steady stream of jobs. How much of this is Mr Perry’s doing is debatable: he did not create Texas’s energy riches or invent its economic model from scratch. The state’s constitution gives its governors less power than the imposing Ionic columns of the governor’s mansion in Austin might lead you to think. Still, Mr Perry has served for over a decade, and nobody else can claim the credit either for protecting and advancing the Texas model or for making it into the best single example of the general Republican proposition that all it takes to unleash America’s animal spirits is for government to get out of the way.”

This morning I also came across a story in the Texas Monthly purporting to provide some background information about Perry from someone who has been following his career for decades.

Paul Burka writes: “Though he managed to avoid the 2012 spotlight longer than any other candidate, Perry, the nation’s longest-serving governor, has lately become, in the words of a recent NPR report, “the eight-hundred-pound gorilla on the sidelines of this race.” The trickle of stories about him has become a stream, and the minute Perry declares his candidacy, that stream will become a flood, a flood that will carry you straight to Austin. “

What does Burka want us to know?

First, that Perry is not George W. Bush... not at all.

Second, that it doesn’t much matter that Perry was once a Democrat.

Three, Perry is canny, that is, politically astute and effective.

Four,  Perry has enhanced the power of the Texas governorship.

And so on.

Admittedly, Perry has taken some positions, especially on illegal immigration, that will open him to attack from his opponents.

As of now, Rick Perry is clearly the man to watch in the Republican presidential field. Unless he commits a serious unforced error, the Republican horse race looks like it’s going to come to down to: Romney or Perry.

Your call.

Good Advice from a 26 Year Old

It’s slightly surprising, but not impossible, for a 26 year old to be offering some very good advice. The woman who does it is an incipient marketing tycoon named Shama Kabani.

It’s more surprising that this advice is not about dating, mating, relationships, or fashion. Not at all.

Kabani has given us 26 lessons about how to succeed in business. I daresay, there’s a need for such advice. If you are roughly Kabani’s age, and are more comfortable taking advice from someone in your own peer group, you have much to gain from her lessons.

Link here.

Is Anders Breivik a "Christian Extremist?"

Last Saturday, the New York Times labeled Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik a “Christian Extremist.”

It used the phrase in a headline that stretched across the better part of the top of the paper’s front page. As Bill O’Reilly pointed out last night, the phrase could not have been there without the editors agreement. It was not an accident; it was not a mistake; it was company policy. It's almost as thought the Times was thrilled that the terrorist was not a Muslim.

So, the New York Times has slanted a news story in order to attack Christianity. If Breivik were a Muslim, the Times would go out of its way to hide the fact.

Of course, nothing suggests that Breivik was a practicing Christian. The latest report, from Breivik’s lawyer, suggests that he is insane.

As O’Reilly points out, the Times and other mainstream media organizations want to equate the action of a right-wing psychotic like Breivik to worldwide Muslim terrorism.

In his words: “In fact, in the ‘New York Times’ today an analysis piece says that some believe we have overreacted to the Muslim threat in the world. Of course, that's absurd. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world. The Taliban, Iran and elements in Pakistan use governmental power to support terrorism by Muslims. But the left-wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism and worldwide jihad.”

But why, O’Reilly asks, is the Times so eager to place blame on Christians? And why is it so timid when it comes time to call Islamic terrorists Islamists? When a man walks onto an American military installation, pulls out an automatic weapon, screams Allahu Akbar, and starts shooting, the Times hesitates before calling him an Islamist. When it feels a need to compromise, it calls him a home-grown terrorist.

Keep in mind that this was the same news organization that could not accept that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq. When forced to face the truth, the Times pathetically started calling the organization: al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Why, O’Reilly added, are the best and the brightest at the Times going so easy on Islamists when these same Islamists hate everything that the Times holds sacred: women’s rights, gay rights, free speech and a free press.

Why is the Times so lenient on people who would, if they could, imprison or execute the editors of the New York Times, without a second thought?

I would answer that the Times editors are consumed by Islamophobia.

And yes, I do understand that in today’s politically correct America, “phobia” has been confused “hatred.” In the real world, a phobia is an irrational, consuming fear. Phobics avoid the objects or situations that they fear. When they cannot avoid these objects of situation, they panic. People who identify phobia with hatred are ignorant.

The Times editors are excessively solicitous toward Muslim sensitivities and sensibilities because they are terrified that if they step out of line the terrorists will go after them.

They remember Salman Rushdie. They remember Molly Norris. They remember the worldwide riots and murders over the Danish cartoons. They are afraid.

This means that their journalistic integrity has been overwhelmed by pure, raw TERROR. The Times has chosen to submit and to appease Islam.

In order not to offend Muslims, knowing that the least offense to Muslim sensibilities can unleash homicidal rage, the Times equates Christianity with Islam, declaring Christians to be equal threats and equal perpetrators of terrorist acts.

But that’s not all. To fill out our explanation, we should understand that those who most fear Muslims also go out of their way to befriend Muslims.

How can they do it? Well, they follow the lesson of the old Arab proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If you want to befriend Muslims, you need but become the enemy of their enemies. First, you must be critical of Israel. Find fault with Israel; declare Israel to be the moral equivalent of Hamas; call Israel an apartheid regime; insist on a one-state solution... and you will be considered to be a friend of Islam. Certainly, Muslims consider Israel to be an offense against Islam, a mortal enemy.

That’s not all. Israel is only a minor enemy of Islam. Islam’s major enemy, it’s historical adversary is Christianity. Hating Israel is just a prelude for hating Christian civilization.

After all, Christians launched the Crusades. Christians took Andalusia back from Muslims. Christians turned back the Muslim advance into Europe.

For the Times editors, Islamophobics all, it couldn’t have been a very close call. After all, they are terrified of Islam and not at all afraid of Christians. If they were afraid of Christians, they would never have labeled Anders Breivik a “Christian extremist.”

Barack Obama Addresses the Nation

Last night President Obama convinced the television networks to give him twenty prime-time minutes to address the nation. The only surprising thing about his speech is that there were no surprises.

Obama said what he had said last Friday. He must have know that his Friday press conference did not work. His solution was to say the same thing again.

He must have thought that the problem was not with the message or the messenger, but with the listeners.

I conclude that Obama feels misunderstood.

Of course, the speech was demagogic. What did you expect from a demagogue? Yet, the more a demagogue gives the same speech the more he starts sounding like a political hack.

Last night Obama was so unpersuasive, so tone deaf to the popular mood, that he ended up sounding like a pundit.

He also sounded detached from the negotiating process. Neither Congressional Republicans nor Congressional Democrats are now asking for tax hikes. Yet, Obama stuck to his class warfare playbook, attacked the rich, and asked for more new taxes.

This shows that he has succeeded in marginalizing himself.

Think of it: the President of the United States has made himself a bit player in the debt ceiling negotiations. None dare call it leadership.

Worse yet, Obama seems to be going out of his way to prove my point, namely, that he does not know how to negotiate. Last night he gave us a master class in how not to do it.

He kept repeating words like “balanced” and “compromise,”  as though he believed that the words themselves would gull the nation into thinking that he favors balanced compromise.

Unsurprisingly, he did dupe the editorial board of the New York Times, but that is not very much of a challenge.

For all the references to balance and compromise, Obama never bothered to offer a single olive branch to Congressional Republicans.

Harshly, he framed issue in us-vs.-them terms. The Republicans were bad guys; they borrowed too much, they taxed too little, they would bear sole responsibility for any economic calamities that befell the nation henceforth.

It was as though Obama had not been president for the past twenty-nine months. You start asking yourself whether he knows who he is.

Candidate Obama then declared the Democrats to be the good guys. They were the party of Ronald Reagan. They balance budgets, and produce budget surpluses. They are the party of fiscal sanity.

As I’ve been saying, you cannot engage a negotiation when you adopt a starkly adversarial posture. No opponent is going to agree with you when agreeing will look and feel like an unconditional surrender.

Coming from someone who was supposed to bring the country together, from someone who was supposed to be a master of oratory, it was a thoroughly embarrassing performance.

Unfortunately, we have been inured to expect as much from Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney: the Default Candidate

By standing on the sidelines and scrupulously avoiding making any statements that might provoke disagreement, Mitt Romney is leading the polls of Republican presidential contenders.

Desperation does not make for good judgment. Republicans are so desperate to win, so desperate to make Barack Obama a one-term president, that they are gravitating to Mitt Romney.

So explains Roger Kimball. I second his motion.

The dinner party at which Kimball observed this offered some insight into the way New York Republicans-- I’m assuming that they are Republicans-- were thinking about candidate selection.

If they had said that they would support the candidate most likely to win, that would be one thing. Today’s polls suggest that Romney would do best against Obama.

For my part I believe that Romney is the default candidate, the candidate people fall back on while waiting for a better alternative to step forth.

If so, then Romney is misreading his popularity. If he imagines that sitting on the sidelines and acting as though he is above the fray will accrue to his advantage, he is likely to be disappointed.

Kimball’s dinner partners, however, did not say that they were supporting Romney because he is the most electable. They said that they wanted to support the candidate who could best attack President Obama.

On that score, one thinks of Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. When, pray tell, has Mitt Romney ever shown the tenacity or aggressiveness to attack anyone over anything.

So, there is an element of illogic to what Kimball was hearing.

One suspects that Romney is the one name you can mention at a New York dinner party without fearing that it’s your last New York dinner party.

Romney is surely the least offensive candidate. He is the least likely to provoke contempt or scorn. No one is going to accuse him of being stupid. If you say that you favor him, no one is going to accuse you of being stupid or being a fascist.

Kimball adds that Romney is, by far, the most Establishment candidate in the field.

In particular, he represents the Northeast Republican Establishment. In the age of the Tea Party, you would not think that the Republican party would rally to a Northeastern Republican, even if he appears today to be the most electable.

It is risky, Kimball adds, to nominate an Establishment candidate when the country has lost confidence in the Establishment. Romney is offering more of the same, only better managed, at a time when the American people are looking for something different.

Kimball says that Romney: “...is a company man when the problem is the company. What is wanted is not a more efficient Washington insider.  What is wanted is someone who understands that a large part of our problem is the hothouse culture in which the Washington inside has taken root and thrived. Romney would not change the culture of Washington; he would cater to it, manage and massage it.”

How did Romney become the default candidate? Perhaps, it’s because he looks the part. This is unfortunate, because electing a president is not the same as casting a movie. What else did Barack Obama have going for him beyond looking the part?

Ah yes, but people will tell you that Romney has experience. Kimball discounts it more than I would, saying that the question is more competence than experience.

I would say that Obama has neither, and that Romney, with experience and demonstrated competence has an advantage on this score.

Neither are likely to suffice. A presidential candidate should be able to highlight his accomplishments while setting forth a vigorous agenda for America’s future.

Kimball is correct to ask what accomplishments Romney brings to the table. We recall that Romney’s experience in private equity was shredded by John Kerry when the two competed for a Massachusetts Senate seat.

Private equity investors work to rationalize corporate structure. This often involves mass layoffs. How much time do you think it will take the DNC to roll out ads starring men and women who lost their jobs because of the financial shenanigans of Mitt Romney.

As for Romeny’s great political achievements, Kimball can only come up with Romneycare, which is a prototype for Obamacare.

As of now, Romney has refused to distance himself from his own plan, and has used double talk to show how different his plan is from Obamacare.

The truth is: if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, then the party will not be able to make Obamacare an issue in the campaign. Having just won an extraordinary victory in the mid-term elections by running against Obamacare, why would the Republican party neutralize the issue in 2012.

More importantly, in Kimball’s eyes, is the question of what Romney stands for. It is easy to be the most acceptable candidate when you have never taken a position on the difficult issues of the day. Does it mean something that candidate Romney is so expert at not giving offense.

Kimball explains: “What, for example, does he think about the debt ceiling?  We don’t know. He hasn’t said.  What specific spending cuts would he suggest to help rein in the deficit? We don’t know. He hasn’t said. The list of things Mitt Romney hasn’t weighed in about would fill a campaign.”

Unfortunately, aloof has a limited shelf life.

At some point, a candidate must take a stand on issues. And he must present a positive agenda. It is not enough to be the Un-Obama.

One hopes that Kimball is right to say that Romney is least likely to garner the Republican presidential nomination.

Even if he is indulging some wishful thinking, it's better than the strange rationalizations that he was hearing at the dinner party.

In his words: “I found it depressing that several distinguished guests at that party could trot out the name of Mitt Romney and believe they had given us something new or at least vital. Mitt Romney is a congeries of yesterday’s establishment Republican — well, I was going to say “clichés,” but so far what he has offered us doesn’t rise to the level of a cliché, which may be tired but at least is something definite. Mitt Romney has tone but no substance. Reality has a way of exposing emptiness and shedding an unflattering light upon equivocation, which is as close as Mitt Romney has come to articulating a policy about any of the critical issues we face.”

Right now, Mitt Romney is the default candidate. He is least likely to take the fight to Obama. He is least likely to harness the energy that has sustained the Tea Party. At a moment when Congressional Republicans are fighting a good fight over spending and taxes, Mitt Romney is nowhere to be found.

Kimball is surely hoping that he stays there.