Romney

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

His success with the Olympics in Utah was an example of both political acumen, and economic sense. He did not seek re-election in Massachusetts, so the fact that he only served one term is not evidence of lack of popularity. " During his term he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit" (wiki, link below). That is not evidence of an "ineffective" governor.

Please provide evidence and specifics about how you define "unpopular" and show where he was ineffective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

 

[JoeB131]

His success with the Olympics in Utah was an example of both political acumen, and economic sense. He did not seek re-election in Massachusetts, so the fact that he only served one term is not evidence of lack of popularity. " During his term he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit" (wiki, link below). That is not evidence of an "ineffective" governor.

Please provide evidence and specifics about how you define "unpopular" and show where he was ineffective.

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay- evidence he was unpopular.

In popularity polls in 2006, he ranked 48 out of 50 governors, with a 34% approval rating.

veracitystew.com/2012/05/19/romney-ended-governorship-with-34-approval-rating/

He was polling behind potential democratic opponents by double digits.

Mitt Romney Trailing in Massachusetts poll

As far as Utah, the problem there was, no one wanted the SLC Olympics to fail. Everyone invovled was invested in their success, even if it meant huge infusions of federal cash. So the premise that he pulled something off great when everyone involved was working towards the same goal is hardly impressive.

 

[koshergrl]

They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.

He did the same thing with the state of Massachusetts.

 

[JoeB131]

They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.

He did the same thing with the state of Massachusetts.

It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course. And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.

 

[Toro]

They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.

He did the same thing with the state of Massachusetts.

It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course. And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.

He did the same thing with the state of Massachusetts.

It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course. And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

 

[Toro]

It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course. And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dealing with stress, and making tough, make-or-break decisions are not experiences limited to those who have run businesses. Nor is "surrounding yourself with smart people".


How would you know what experience a candidate has with "stress" and making "tough, make or break decisions"?

There is a plethora of information on the stress and tough decisions that Romney has incurred in his various projects. Analysis and summary and evaluation galore written by people with the credentials to do that re Romney. All one has to to is google it up and read up or watch any of the documentaries that have already been produced.

I don't doubt for a second that Romney has had stress in his life.

My point was that everyone has - not just those who've "run a business".

LOL, you sound like Obama.
"Lots of people are smart."
"Lots of people work hard."
"Lots of people have stress."

But of course you are right, lots of people have stress. But. . . .those who have succesfully incurred the stress and difficulty of major problem solving and putting a struggling business back on its feet as well as juggling the very difficult job of managing a state budget and negotiating critical legislation, would seem to have a more attractive resume to take on bigger responsibiltiies than would somebody who has done little or none of that.

 

[Peach]

A focused mind, and the discipline he learned through his faith. Unfortunately, the last few days he has failed to exhibit either quality while outside the US.

 

[Foxfyre]

A focused mind, and the discipline he learned through his faith. Unfortunately, the last few days he has failed to exhibit either quality while outside the US.

I disagree. The Left has been trying to make hay out of some of his comments they have taken out of their full context, and have grossly exaggerated any extemporaneous negative comments others say in what I believe is their ongoing campaign to diminish and discredit Romney. And they meticulously avoid reporting on much that would be in Romney's favor.

But it was obvious, at least to me, in his trip to Israel that Romney is not interested in following the standard politically correct wishy washy attitudes re Israel versus the Palestinians. Of course he has been soundly criticized for those gaffes while the whole thing struck me as the mark of a statesman who is telling it like it is instead of what he is 'supposed to say.'

 

[Peach]

They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.

He did the same thing with the state of Massachusetts.

It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course. And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.

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.

Romney received adequate money, and lists of actual organizers to get things going; he himself did not work overtime. The LDS church played a large role in that Olympics, and should be credited. Having a favored son at the helm resulted in the Church, a well organized faith, doing the actual WORK. The LDS church deserves he credit, not the poster boy. Cameron was wrong, Salt Lake City is not in the middle of nowhere, it is part of the only state in the US actually run, in large part, by a church.

 

[MeBelle]

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.

Romney received adequate money, and lists of actual organizers to get things going; he himself did not work overtime. The LDS church played a large role in that Olympics, and should be credited. Having a favored son at the helm resulted in the Church, a well organized faith, doing the actual WORK. The LDS church deserves he credit, not the poster boy. Cameron was wrong, Salt Lake City is not in the middle of nowhere, it is part of the only state in the US actually run, in large part, by a church.

Links??

 

[Toro]

It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course. And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.

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.

Romney received adequate money, and lists of actual organizers to get things going; he himself did not work overtime. The LDS church played a large role in that Olympics, and should be credited. Having a favored son at the helm resulted in the Church, a well organized faith, doing the actual WORK. The LDS church deserves he credit, not the poster boy. Cameron was wrong, Salt Lake City is not in the middle of nowhere, it is part of the only state in the US actually run, in large part, by a church.

Well, what was the problem I'm the first place then? If it was all there, why was it failing? This dichotomy seems to escape the politically motivated critics. If the problem was easy to solve, it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

Truth is, the Olympics were failing. Romney took over leadership of the Olympics and it succeeded. The politically motivated people are trying to tear him down because it is in their political interest to do so.

 

[koshergrl]

It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course. And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.

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.

Romney received adequate money, and lists of actual organizers to get things going; he himself did not work overtime. The LDS church played a large role in that Olympics, and should be credited. Having a favored son at the helm resulted in the Church, a well organized faith, doing the actual WORK. The LDS church deserves he credit, not the poster boy. Cameron was wrong, Salt Lake City is not in the middle of nowhere, it is part of the only state in the US actually run, in large part, by a church.

Can you support that?

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Okay, but why isn't Romney pointing at his record? He doesn't want to talk about anything that makes him look bad, but he can't just point and scream about Obama for the next 90 days.

Well, I mean - he CAN but seriously. He needs to discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of being a governor (OR being the CEO of Bain), but he won't, just like he won't release more tax returns or discuss tax havens.

Makes it hard to get enthusiastic about the man.

 

[koshergrl]

I think pointing at Obama could be pretty effective, all things considered.

But I thought the discussion wasn't about what he should do in his campaign, but why we like Romney.

 

[there4eyeM]

Jimmy Carter was successful in business and was a governor, yet most Romney supports do not consider his preparations sufficient.
I am definitely not a Romney supporter and can see he has a very poor understanding of economics.
I am definitely not a supporter of Obama.
Both have poor defense and international relations ideas.
Neither has answers for the real problems that confront humanity.
Almost anyone else would be better, and at least overthrowing the two-party dictatorship would be good.
Get off Romney! Get off Obama!
Get off dualism.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

I don't like him. His "buisness experience" consits of major cuts. Wow, companies did better when they spent less. Great busiess model there romnom.

Many expenses need to be cut, yes, but I strongly believe romney will slash out at everything. He's going to be JUST like bush, a blank page on which his advisors can and will write whatever they damn well please.

Furthermore, his stance on tax cuts. The rich can pay clintion-era taxes. Its not too much to ask. The middle class, however, is the source of power of our economy. If low taxes are needed anywhere in America, they are needed for the middle class.

Honeslty, who cares about the rich's tax level anyway. You can give them a 40% rate and they'll find a way to pay 15%.