Joho the Blog
|
|
|
August 02, 2005
The NY Times today runs this photo of Mitt Romney, our GQ-perfect governor, in his office. Can you spot what's wrong with it:
As I believe a letter in the Boston Globe pointed out, the framed photos of his lovely family are all facing out from the desk, perfect for photos opps but leaving Mitt staring lovingly at the backs of the frames. A fitting picture of Mitt as just yet another political phony... [Technorati tags: MittRomney] Posted
by D. Weinberger at August 2, 2005 11:34 AM
|
Comments
If he is arriving (in his presumably vast office) why would he be walking away from what I imagine you presume to be the seating position on the non-photo-frame side of the desk?
The desk is double-sided, hence drawers on the frame side. There may well be a return-unit (with PC, etc.) on the frame side that he sits at predominantly (and is walking around to). The far side of the desk, may well be for the occasion when a need for 'clear desk space with phone number 2' surpasses the need to stare at family.
Not enough information for conclusive answer...
Posted by: Crosbie Fitch | August 2, 2005 12:47 PM
Gee, is this an example to help remind us of the comment policy on this site and what it means to cross the ad hominem line?
My first thought was that he likes to show off his family to visitors in his office, but anything I think about it is simply all made up, isn't it?
I wonder what is in the one frame I see that is facing the other way, too.
[Bites tongue and moves on ... I really love the taxonomy stuff you are doing David, and the travel reports and personal experiences are great.]
Posted by: orcmid | August 2, 2005 08:44 PM
Orcmid, character is a fair topic when it comes to public figures, especially politicians selling themselves on the quality of their character.
Crosbie, the open space on his desk is behind his photos. You can give him the benefit of the doubt if you want, of course, but given his recent betrayal of his campaign promises in the service of his (vice-)presidential campaign, I am not inclined to.
Posted by: David Weinberger | August 3, 2005 08:54 AM
Crosbie Finch says, "If he is arriving (in his presumably vast office) why would he be walking away from what I imagine you presume to be the seating position on the non-photo-frame side of the desk?
The desk is double-sided, hence drawers on the frame side. There may well be a return-unit (with PC, etc.) on the frame side that he sits at predominantly (and is walking around to). The far side of the desk, may well be for the occasion when a need for 'clear desk space with phone number 2' surpasses the need to stare at family."
I'm with this assessment. The desk is two sided. When I first looked at it, it looked like a table pushed against the desk. Maybe he wants his visitors to see the pictures, come on. This is such a lame thing to make a big deal out of.
Posted by: ParachuteGurl | August 3, 2005 12:42 PM
Dave,
How 'bout giving us the low-down on this dude? I saw him featured in the New Yorker I believe it was today but had neither the strength or courage to plow through the piece opting instead to read Ken Auletta's topical piece on morning televsion. Republican, mormon, insect?
Posted by: daniel luke | August 3, 2005 11:51 PM