Romney

[BDBoop]

Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.

Specifics would be greatly appreciated.

A business acumen. Executive experience. Moderate political beliefs. Interest in boosting the private sector.

My problem with this premise has always been that what makes you a success in business doesn't necessarily translate into success in politics.

The Business environment almost discourages dissent. You have to see something really wrong before you object. And depending on the boss, you'd better be right.

The political arena is pretty much the opposite. People will object to stuff merely because you proposed it.

Now, I've been critical of Romney in nearly every other thread, but let's concede that within the context of what he did in Bain, he was very good.

But when he got into a position where people objected or disagreed or he had to build concensus, not so much. As governor, he was unpopular, largely ineffective, and only served one term.

From the following link, this gentleman totally hit the nail on the head as far as my perceptions of Willard go.

The most striking (but by no means only) example of this was Romney's non-position on President Obama's changes to immigration policy for children. After Obama made his announcement, Romney tried to have things both ways. According to Romney, what Obama did was wrong (naturally), and a "President Romney" would much rather have Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform so he could sign it into law. What would Mitt do from "Day One" in office until this wondrous event happened? He wouldn't say. Would he overturn Obama's directive? Mitt was mum. Would he continue the policy until Congress acted? Not going to answer that one, sorry.

This is Mitt's position on issue after issue that comes up in the news. "I've got a secret plan, which will be implemented on Day One, but I'm not going to tell you about it because it might cause somebody somewhere to vote against me." How will Mitt magically cut taxes and end the deficit? We don't know. How will Romney reform the tax code to get rid of all those loopholes? Got me. Will this involve lower mortgage deductions, or reducing the charitable giving write-off? Mitt'll tell you later, after he's elected. Has Mitt used tax-dodging schemes himself? "You people" have all the information you're ever going to get out of him, sorry. What will Romney replace Obamacare with? Dunno. What would he do differently in Afghanistan? Your guess is as good as mine. Mitt's list of such weaseling is a long one.

Chris Weigant: Romney: Not Wimp But Weasel

 

[Artevelde]

Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.

Specifics would be greatly appreciated.

Frankly, I wouldn't know. He is very vague and I find it difficult to get an idea of what kind of President he would be. One can presume he would be business-friendly and that he will espouse free market principles. I also get the impression that he is rather international-minded and in favour of free trade, which is a good thing. He may actually stand up better against protectionist pressures than Obama.

This being said, what did Obama bring to the Presidency except overblown rhetoric? And after 4 years, it's not really looking any better.

Compared to Obama in 2008, Romney has a wealth of experience.

but frankly, I'm not very much impressed by either of them.

 

[JoeB131]

A business acumen. Executive experience. Moderate political beliefs. Interest in boosting the private sector.

My problem with this premise has always been that what makes you a success in business doesn't necessarily translate into success in politics.

The Business environment almost discourages dissent. You have to see something really wrong before you object. And depending on the boss, you'd better be right.

The political arena is pretty much the opposite. People will object to stuff merely because you proposed it.

Now, I've been critical of Romney in nearly every other thread, but let's concede that within the context of what he did in Bain, he was very good.

But when he got into a position where people objected or disagreed or he had to build concensus, not so much. As governor, he was unpopular, largely ineffective, and only served one term.

He was also a conservative with a semi hostile Democratically controlled State Legislature, and of course Romney's GOP opponents in the primary races and President Obama now are trying to make his record as governor of Massachusetts look as ineffective and awful as possible.

However, nobody could accuse WaPo of being a pro-Republian or pro-Romney publication, and their fact checker probably shows it pretty close to how it was:

. . . You’ll notice the former governor has a mixed record on employment, with the outcomes largely depending on how you look at the data. This is what happens when job gains are tenuous. The takeaway is that Romney’s record is decent at best and unimpressive at worst -- but not wildly successful or dismal, as the two campaigns want voters to believe.
Is Romney’s Massachusetts record really as bad as Obama says? - The Washington Post

Ineffective? That's pretty strong against the actual record.

If Romney thinks the MA Legislature was "hostile", what does he think the Dems in Washington are going to be like when after he topples Obama?

Of course, this is revisionism by Mr. "Severely Conservative". The fact is, he was a liberal to moderate governor up until the point he decided he had higher ambitions, and had to work the conservative side of the street because McCain and Guliani had the moderate side all sewn up.

Here's the bottom line. He served one term, and he left such a bad taste in the mouths of the people he represented that he isn't even trying to win Mass. in November. That I think is very telling in and of itself. Usually, when a guy loses his home state, that's a bad sign. McGovern and Gore come to mind. But when he doesn't even try, you have to wonder why.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeAmpad couldn't say a thing positive about Romney if his life depended on it. That's how hatred warps objectivity.

If it were so easy, they would have gotten some local shmoe to turn around the Olympics. But they didn't. They turned to a guy who had a long history of turning around organizations, and he did that.

But haters gonna hate.

I'm seeing you missed the whole discussion about Clean Debate Zone not including personal attacks.

This is in the Clean Zone? I can't tell on Tapatalk.

OK, I'll scrub it clean. Here:

It is politically convenient for those who oppose and even hate Romney to minimize his accomplishments. But the truth is that he did turn around the Olympics. He was hired because Romney is known as a brilliant turnaround artist. Of course, his opponents who have a vested interest in minimizing his vast accomplishments will point to a few instances when he failed, but he did not fail in SLC. If it was a nonevent, as the politically biased claim, then they would have hired anyone. Of course, they did not. They hired Romney. And now, his opponents are engaging in historical revisionism, which is pretty sad.

Okay, in the spirit of things.

He was hired because he was well known enough to be a good front man after SLC officials stepped in it by bribing IOC officials, and because being a member of their "religion", he was more likely to help them bury the bodies than point them out. Anyone could have re-organized it, but not everyone would have done so in such a way that minimized how the Olympics got into such a mess to start with.

And at the end of the day, it was the Olympics. And not even the important one. seriously, if you don't have ice-skaters kneecapping each other, who really cares about the Winter Olympics?

 

[Toro]

I'm seeing you missed the whole discussion about Clean Debate Zone not including personal attacks.

This is in the Clean Zone? I can't tell on Tapatalk.

OK, I'll scrub it clean. Here:

It is politically convenient for those who oppose and even hate Romney to minimize his accomplishments. But the truth is that he did turn around the Olympics. He was hired because Romney is known as a brilliant turnaround artist. Of course, his opponents who have a vested interest in minimizing his vast accomplishments will point to a few instances when he failed, but he did not fail in SLC. If it was a nonevent, as the politically biased claim, then they would have hired anyone. Of course, they did not. They hired Romney. And now, his opponents are engaging in historical revisionism, which is pretty sad.

Okay, in the spirit of things.

He was hired because he was well known enough to be a good front man after SLC officials stepped in it by bribing IOC officials, and because being a member of their "religion", he was more likely to help them bury the bodies than point them out. Anyone could have re-organized it, but not everyone would have done so in such a way that minimized how the Olympics got into such a mess to start with.

And at the end of the day, it was the Olympics. And not even the important one. seriously, if you don't have ice-skaters kneecapping each other, who really cares about the Winter Olympics?

Did you know that at the time, the women's figure skating event between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding in Albertville was one of the highest rated sporting events in the US of all time? It was either the second highest or the second highest excluding Super Bowls, I can't remember exactly, but I think it was the former. Either way, it was huge.

First, the politically motivated play down Romney, now they're playing down the Olympics. Diminishing his accomplishments debases their arguments, which is why Democrats aren't doing it. Democrats are going after a handful of investments that went bad because they believe it undermines the Romney narrative of being a job creator but they aren't denying that he wasn't enormously successful otherwise. They aren't rationalizing away the Olympics because they know it's a loser. The extremely biased on all sides will rationalize away to reinforce their beliefs. That's the critique of Romney and the Olympics.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you know that at the time, the women's figure skating event between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding in Albertville was one of the highest rated sporting events in the US of all time? It was either the second highest or the second highest excluding Super Bowls, I can't remember exactly, but I think it was the former. Either way, it was huge.

And if the USOC had its way, it never would have happened. They did their level best to throw Harding off the team before it ever got there. Because it was kind of a disgrace. But because they couldn't prove that her husband told her about the plot, she was allowed.

Yeah, it was big, for the wrong reasons. Not because of the grace of the sport, but because people wanted to see the train wreck.

And without checking Wiki, the biggest event of the 2002 games were.. ummmm, what exactly?

First, the politically motivated play down Romney, now they're playing down the Olympics. Diminishing his accomplishments debases their arguments, which is why Democrats aren't doing it. Democrats are going after a handful of investments that went bad because they believe it undermines the Romney narrative of being a job creator but they aren't denying that he wasn't enormously successful otherwise. They aren't rationalizing away the Olympics because they know it's a loser. The extremely biased on all sides will rationalize away to reinforce their beliefs. That's the critique of Romney and the Olympics.

As more than a few people pointed out, Romney's purpose at Bain was not to "create jobs", it was to create profits for investors. And if that meant moving jobs overseas or shuttering a plant or yanking worker's pay and benefits, that's what he did. Those investments didn't "go bad", they were the victim of looting by vampire capitalists.

The same thing with the Olympics. His purpose was to whitewash over what a mess his fellow LDS had made of it, and because it would have been a huge national black eye if it had fallen flat, everyone from Corporate America to the Federal Government pitched in to make it work. So give Romney Credit. Only if you give everyone else credit as well. From Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to the kid working security that Romney screamed at and berated because he was Mitt Romney and no peasent was going to tell him where to park his car.

My question is, why isn't Romney talking more about his time as governor of Massachusetts, which is far more relevent than Bain or the Olympics and more recent.

 

[Toro]

A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?

And the reason, of course, is that

1.) he wasn't, and
2.) it undermines their narrative that he isn't a moderate

 

[koshergrl]

I'm seeing you missed the whole discussion about Clean Debate Zone not including personal attacks.

This is in the Clean Zone? I can't tell on Tapatalk.

OK, I'll scrub it clean. Here:

It is politically convenient for those who oppose and even hate Romney to minimize his accomplishments. But the truth is that he did turn around the Olympics. He was hired because Romney is known as a brilliant turnaround artist. Of course, his opponents who have a vested interest in minimizing his vast accomplishments will point to a few instances when he failed, but he did not fail in SLC. If it was a nonevent, as the politically biased claim, then they would have hired anyone. Of course, they did not. They hired Romney. And now, his opponents are engaging in historical revisionism, which is pretty sad.

Okay, in the spirit of things.

He was hired because he was well known enough to be a good front man after SLC officials stepped in it by bribing IOC officials, and because being a member of their "religion", he was more likely to help them bury the bodies than point them out. Anyone could have re-organized it, but not everyone would have done so in such a way that minimized how the Olympics got into such a mess to start with.

And at the end of the day, it was the Olympics. And not even the important one. seriously, if you don't have ice-skaters kneecapping each other, who really cares about the Winter Olympics?

You have anything to back any of this up? Supporting evidence? That is the spirit of true debate, of course.

 

[koshergrl]

A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?

And the reason, of course, is that

1.) he wasn't, and
2.) it undermines their narrative that he isn't a moderate

I keep asking for something besides rhetoric. While nobody is calling names, nothing else is different here. Nobody is adhering to the standard of real debate or anything remotely close it it. The name of the forum should be changed.

 

[JoeB131]

A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?

And the reason, of course, is that

1.) he wasn't, and
2.) it undermines their narrative that he isn't a moderate

Or that all his dodgy deals at Bain are such a target rich environment that they don't need to really go into his non-tenure in Massachusetts.

Of course, a few more incidents like his "RomneyShambles" tour, he might do himself in.

 

[Toro]

A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?

And the reason, of course, is that

1.) he wasn't, and
2.) it undermines their narrative that he isn't a moderate

Or that all his dodgy deals at Bain are such a target rich environment that they don't need to really go into his non-tenure in Massachusetts.

Of course, a few more incidents like his "RomneyShambles" tour, he might do himself in.

Yet his opponents have to mislead about his record at Bain. 270 deals, a dozen go bad, and according to the biased partisans, GS Technologies was a wonderful company and Newt finds ex-employees who say that Gingrich's video is wrong.

But, as Obama said, that's what you expect from those who can't run on their own record.

 

[JoeB131]

A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?

And the reason, of course, is that

1.) he wasn't, and
2.) it undermines their narrative that he isn't a moderate

Or that all his dodgy deals at Bain are such a target rich environment that they don't need to really go into his non-tenure in Massachusetts.

Of course, a few more incidents like his "RomneyShambles" tour, he might do himself in.

Yet his opponents have to mislead about his record at Bain. 270 deals, a dozen go bad, and according to the biased partisans, GS Technologies was a wonderful company and Newt finds ex-employees who say that Gingrich's video is wrong.

But, as Obama said, that's what you expect from those who can't run on their own record.

Yeah, if Romney were so proud of what he did at Bain, he wouldn't be acting like the piano player at the cathouse who claims he had no idea what was going on upstairs after 1999.

 

[Toro]

Or that all his dodgy deals at Bain are such a target rich environment that they don't need to really go into his non-tenure in Massachusetts.

Of course, a few more incidents like his "RomneyShambles" tour, he might do himself in.

Yet his opponents have to mislead about his record at Bain. 270 deals, a dozen go bad, and according to the biased partisans, GS Technologies was a wonderful company and Newt finds ex-employees who say that Gingrich's video is wrong.

But, as Obama said, that's what you expect from those who can't run on their own record.

Yeah, if Romney were so proud of what he did at Bain, he wouldn't be acting like the piano player at the cathouse who claims he had no idea what was going on upstairs after 1999.

He talks about his success at Bain all the time.

But in the Gotcha! culture of politics and journalism, people distort, lie and lie by omission to advance their agendas and careers.

 

[Peach]

Sancto & Newt ripped him so hard, it will be good to learn about the real man in the coming months.

 

[The Infidel]

I keep asking for something besides rhetoric. While nobody is calling names, nothing else is different here. Nobody is adhering to the standard of real debate or anything remotely close it it. The name of the forum should be changed.

Agreed

Just a Romney hate fest IMO.

 

[Trajan]

The business acumen he has does more harm than good.

How so?

 

[BDBoop]

The business acumen he has does more harm than good.

How so?

Sorry, I've already been ruled out as not qualified to post in here.

 

[JoeB131]

Yet his opponents have to mislead about his record at Bain. 270 deals, a dozen go bad, and according to the biased partisans, GS Technologies was a wonderful company and Newt finds ex-employees who say that Gingrich's video is wrong.

But, as Obama said, that's what you expect from those who can't run on their own record.

Yeah, if Romney were so proud of what he did at Bain, he wouldn't be acting like the piano player at the cathouse who claims he had no idea what was going on upstairs after 1999.

He talks about his success at Bain all the time.

But in the Gotcha! culture of politics and journalism, people distort, lie and lie by omission to advance their agendas and careers.

Yes he does. And he pretends that the bad stuff- AmPad, DDi, Damon Medical, GS Steel, all the outsourcing - That had nothing to do with him. Nope. He was doing the Olympics when the bad stuff happened. Yuppers. Ignore that $100,000 Bain was paying him. And Tax returns? Fuggitaboutit!

and this is kind of a problem. The "Good Parts" happened in the 1990's, when thanks to Bill Clinton, we had 4% unemployment and a rolling stock market and you could even make up a company like Pets.com where your only asset was a stupid puppet and make a bunch of money.

But when everything went South in 2001? Nope. I was doing the Olympics. Nothing to do with any of that bad stuff!

 

[SayMyName]

Actually, the more I see and learn of him and his family, the more I like him. I think he would end up being a great leader, but one facing tremedous challenges in the future of this nation. I believe the divide has reached near "fighting" proportions in our country.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, the more I see and learn of him and his family, the more I like him. I think he would end up being a great leader, but one facing tremedous challenges in the future of this nation. I believe the divide has reached near "fighting" proportions in our country.

But the question is, why is there a divide at all?

My problem with Romney (besides my mistrust of his religion) is that he looks at the decline in the middle class that has been wrought in the last 30 years as a good thing. Cut those union wages and benefits so investors can have more. Send jobs overseas. Replace people with machines. Do Six Sigma to squeeze the last ounce of productivity out of an overstressed underpaid worker. And the promise is, we will all be investors, so it will work out.

But no, not really. I keep a copy of my 401K statement from Q4 2008 to show the lie to that statement.

When you dismantle the middle class, you make people more dependent on government. When the working poor have to get food stamps and section 8 vouchers and medicare to get the things their parents used to earn with a good paying job, you get people who will vote for more government.

The GOP's position has not to correct this problem. Their Wall Street Sugar Daddies won't hear of that. Nope. Instead what they do is find other issues to keep working folks mad at each other. Gay marriage, abortion, guns, "War on Christmas".