Romney

[Bob]

3rd time's a charm?

Romney Tells Donors He Is Considering 2016 White House Bid

More like 3 strikes and you're out!  Just my opinion.  Even if he received the Republican nomination, all the arguments from 2012 will surface against him in terms of his remarks about the 47%, that he is a rich guy that is "out of touch" with the middle class, that he profited unfairly from Bane Capital, etc, etc. 

Isn't (one of) the definitions of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

[Lowe]

Plenty of presidents were rich.  His main disadvantage is Mormonism, which detracts from his support among evangelicals.

He looks less like a goofball than any other candidate, though, so he is probably still the republican's best shot.

[Pointedstick]

Plenty of presidents were rich.

Sure, like Obama was. He was a millionaire too. Romney's problem is that he trumpets and defends it rather than hiding it and trying play the laughable game of passing himself off as a man of the people the way every politician has to. Being rich is something you're supposed to be ashamed of and hide nowadays in enlightened social circles. You need to talk about your hardscrabble background, your time working in a rough or exploitative job as a kid, your difficult childhood, your struggle to make ends meet, etc--even if all of these things are total fabrications or gross exaggerations.

Romney's conventional, privileged background, great wealth and defense of richness, harsh meritocratic rhetoric, whiteness, maleness, Republicanness, and, most importantly, inability to pretend otherwise (when he tries, he's really bad at it), simply add up to a person whose characteristics do not appeal very much to the modern American electorate.

In other words, what kind of president he would make is irrelevant because he's not a good enough actor. That's just where we're at right now. We elect politicians because of their qualifications as actors, motivational speakers, and fundraisers.

[moda0306]

Plenty of presidents were rich.  His main disadvantage is Mormonism, which detracts from his support among evangelicals.

He looks less like a goofball than any other candidate, though, so he is probably still the republican's best shot.

To me, it was quite odd the range Romney showed.

If he was trying to talk to more blue-collar folks, or speaking in a more populist manner to a middle-class crowd, I found him to be almost the epitome of a "goofball," even if I'm agreeing with what he is saying or he is speaking the truth

But when he's in front of rich campaign contributors talking about how 47% of the country doesn't pay taxes so they're all going to vote democratic, and republicans have to work to get the other 53%, even though his analysis was extremely flawed in many ways (much of the 47% doesn't vote democratic), he was "on."  He was articulate, assertive, not trying to act affable and "normal."  He sounded like a confident, ball-busting CEO of a hedge-fund.

If he could carry that into his more moderate populist ramblings, he'd be a pretty solid lock.  But he can't manage that, for some reason, and (to me) often comes off as a goof-ball as a result.

I actually wish he would have played the CEO bit off a bit more assertively.  If I were him, I probably would have tried to put together a speech somewhat like this...

"Look, I wasn't paid as CEO of Bane Capital to make sure that the population had universal healthcare, the country maintained 5% unemployment, or that the transit system stayed punctual.  I was hired to buy and sell companies from willing buyers and sellers for a profit for the benefit of the investors who were my employers.  I did that job incredibly well, and I did it honestly.  Sometimes that meant employing resources in such a way that lost people jobs.  But remember, my employers didn't hire me to maximize employment.  They hired me to make a profit.  I would have been ignoring my duty if I had tried to save every failing business I purchased, just as our current President is ignoring his duty to the American people... HIS employers. When I brought those same skillsets to being governor of Massachusetts, THAT is when my employers... the citizens of the great state of Massachussetts... asked me to do the job of managing those public purposes, and once again I did that job incredibly well.  And it's the same leadership and effectiveness I will bring to when the American people hire me to keep them safe, free and prosperous this November.  You have a choice this November.  You can hire someone who you think might just understand you better because he grew up with less abundance than I did, but never devloped the skills to manage so much as a 711, much less a whole country, or you can hire someone who knows how to get the job done no matter what it takes."

I wish he had just "worn it" more.  I would have respected him far more for it, he spoke SO much more real and confidently when he was in that "mode," and I think it would have been an honest portrayal that people could oddly get behind in the midst of a fumbling economy and rookie President.  He tried to turn Bain Capital into some sort of "jobs program" and it just looked phony.  I mean the name of the place sounds like about the best "evil corporation" name I could ever think of.  He should have played the badass Lex Luthor part, rather than trying to fumble his way through trying to convince NASCAR-watching welders that he was "one of them."

[Lowe]

He is kind of goofy, but still better than Bush, Christie, or any other, on appearance alone.  Romney looks like someone from whom you might accept orders.  He has gravitas.  You're right that he could have more, though.  Being more of a hard ass might go a long way.

[moda0306]

When Romney is "on," he has great gravitas.  But when he's in "NASCAR mode," I prefer Jeb Bush or Christie.

It would have been an interesting "experiment" to see how much tweaking "populist blue-collar Romney" back over to "real Romney" would have been successful in improving his numbers.

I find guys that sort of "wear" their idiosyncracies and potential flaws rather than try to hide them are my favorite kind of people.  What you see is what you get... and Americans like that (I think), even even when it's not someone "just like them."  It's someone that they know is "real" with what they present.

[Mountaineer]

I actually wish he would have played the CEO bit off a bit more assertively.  If I were him, I probably would have tried to put together a speech somewhat like this...

"Look, I wasn't paid as CEO of Bane Capital to make sure that the population had universal healthcare, the country maintained 5% unemployment, or that the transit system stayed punctual.  I was hired to buy and sell companies from willing buyers and sellers for a profit for the benefit of the investors who were my employers.  I did that job incredibly well, and I did it honestly.  Sometimes that meant employing resources in such a way that lost people jobs.  But remember, my employers didn't hire me to maximize employment.  They hired me to make a profit.  I would have been ignoring my duty if I had tried to save every failing business I purchased, just as our current President is ignoring his duty to the American people... HIS employers. When I brought those same skillsets to being governor of Massachusetts, THAT is when my employers... the citizens of the great state of Massachussetts... asked me to do the job of managing those public purposes, and once again I did that job incredibly well.  And it's the same leadership and effectiveness I will bring to when the American people hire me to keep them safe, free and prosperous this November.  You have a choice this November.  You can hire someone who you think might just understand you better because he grew up with less abundance than I did, but never devloped the skills to manage so much as a 711, much less a whole country, or you can hire someone who knows how to get the job done no matter what it takes."

According to my count, that is 1001.  Right moda? 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Right!

Wait... I think that is 1,002.  Perhaps we shouldn't count agreeing on how many times we've agreed.  The universe might implode.

Yeah, you guys probably mistake me for this commie, but I don't know how many times I defended Romney over the Bain Capital thing.  My problem wasn't the fact that he sh!t-canned people (I have pretty conservative opinions towards how we should look at an employment arrangement (though I favor unions))... My problem with Romney is that private sector skill-sets don't necessarily work in a closed system that is the U.S. economy (IMO).

But I respect that role.  One of the most frustrating movies I ever watched was The Family Man, where Nicholas Cage went from being a COO (or something like that) of a huge company, driving a Ferrari, and sleeping with random women, to flashing into what his life would have been had he stayed with his ex-GF and married her.

It was like a really bad way of retelling the whole Scrooge story.  Because he was a good dude as a rich exec.  He seemed to do his job honestly and well, but was a bit of a hard-ass.  There's nothing wrong with that, and the world needs those types of people.

And if you ARE going to run for president with that background... OWN IT!

[madbean]

Was watching the 60 minutes segment last night about the effects of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. Those involved in the business expressed concern that the whole thing could explode on them if a future president decides to be a killjoy and enforce federal law. Thinking about the probable field of candidates, I thought to myself that the most likely to do this would be Romney, followed by Huckabee. Romney did say in the last campaign that he intended to "crack down" on marijuana if elected, whatever that meant.

[moda0306]

Was watching the 60 minutes segment last night about the effects of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. Those involved in the business expressed concern that the whole thing could explode on them if a future president decides to be a killjoy and enforce federal law. Thinking about the probable field of candidates, I thought to myself that the most likely to do this would be Romney, followed by Huckabee. Romney did say in the last campaign that he intended to "crack down" on marijuana if elected, whatever that meant.

Ugh. You just shot down whatever "Lex Luthor Romney" campaign dreams I had.

That will be a sad day in America if the feds crack down where states are letting up on marijuana.

[Lowe]

The strategy PointedStick outlined is what most republican candidates have followed.  Especially Bush Jr.  Identifying with the common man, etc.  H/e it is a lot easier to buy with somebody like Reagan or Huckabee, who attended small Christian colleges.  It apparently doesn't work so well with a Harvard educated management consultant.

I don't know that he can do much to win over evangelicals, but I bet he could win over more single women if he were more boastful of his background.  Women love masculine provider-types, especially if they're kind of dickish.  There's no reason to hold back now.  This is the last chance he will get.

[MachineGhost]

Romney's conventional, privileged background, great wealth and defense of richness, harsh meritocratic rhetoric, whiteness, maleness, Republicanness, and, most importantly, inability to pretend otherwise (when he tries, he's really bad at it), simply add up to a person whose characteristics do not appeal very much to the modern American electorate.

In other words, what kind of president he would make is irrelevant because he's not a good enough actor. That's just where we're at right now. We elect politicians because of their qualifications as actors, motivational speakers, and fundraisers.

You're overexaggerating the importance of an individual candidate over the party.  In a general election, the rank and file vote for parties, not candidates.  Romney received 48% of the popular vote.

No one can contest that Romney would have been far, far preferable than Obama during the past three years.  We need true statemen and less of political whores.

Anyway, Bush is still the favorite to win the Republican nominaton and Hillary to win the Presidency.  I don't see that changing anytime soon but the next two years are going to be economically tumultous and with third parties making an appearance.

[MachineGhost]

But when he's in front of rich campaign contributors talking about how 47% of the country doesn't pay taxes so they're all going to vote democratic, and republicans have to work to get the other 53%, even though his analysis was extremely flawed in many ways (much of the 47% doesn't vote democratic), he was "on."  He was articulate, assertive, not trying to act affable and "normal."  He sounded like a confident, ball-busting CEO of a hedge-fund.

He said 47% don't pay income taxes.

[moda0306]

Romney's conventional, privileged background, great wealth and defense of richness, harsh meritocratic rhetoric, whiteness, maleness, Republicanness, and, most importantly, inability to pretend otherwise (when he tries, he's really bad at it), simply add up to a person whose characteristics do not appeal very much to the modern American electorate.

In other words, what kind of president he would make is irrelevant because he's not a good enough actor. That's just where we're at right now. We elect politicians because of their qualifications as actors, motivational speakers, and fundraisers.

You're overexaggerating the importance of an individual candidate over the party.  In a general election, the rank and file vote for parties, not candidates.  Romney received 48.4% of the popular vote.

No one can contest that Romney would have been far, far preferable than Obama during the past three years.  We need true statemen and less of political whores.

Sorry, but that bolded line is completely false... you can easily argue we'd be in a pretty similar position, and some could likely articulate why we'd be worse off.

Especially if that marijuana crack-down nonsense is true.

Throw in an inflationist fed chairmen and/or drastic spending cuts and we'd be talking about a double-dip recession right now.

[MachineGhost]

Sorry, but that bolded line is completely false... you can easily argue we'd be in a pretty similar position, and some could likely articulate why we'd be worse off.

Especially if that marijuana crack-down nonsense is true.

Throw in an inflationist fed chairmen and/or drastic spending cuts and we'd be talking about a double-dip recession right now.

I don't see how its false when Obama has done nothing but fumble the ball constantly.  The marijuana thing would have really sucked but that's relatively a minor issue considering the real economic and foreign policy challenges we're facing that Obama has been (and is) woefully unprepared to handle.  Just look at his track record after six years in office.  The guy is a pussy and a joke.  As he likes to always say, "I may be naive..."  No shit, Mr. Obama!

Don't confuse Romney who is a right-of-center RINO with those right-wing austerity kooks.  Obama doesn't own it.  He may talk the talk, but his walk is lacking.  Shit, even Hillary has more balls.

[Lowe]

He said 47% don't pay income taxes.

Yes, that is what moda meant.

The marijuana thing is too bad.  Maybe he does that to bolster support with Law and Order types.  Losing the Republican base has been a concern for Romney, I imagine.

[moda0306]

But when he's in front of rich campaign contributors talking about how 47% of the country doesn't pay taxes so they're all going to vote democratic, and republicans have to work to get the other 53%, even though his analysis was extremely flawed in many ways (much of the 47% doesn't vote democratic), he was "on."  He was articulate, assertive, not trying to act affable and "normal."  He sounded like a confident, ball-busting CEO of a hedge-fund.

He said 47% don't pay income taxes.

He may have said that... regardless, it's clear that is what he meant.  Which is fine if you want to paint a picture with a half-truth by not including all the other regressive taxes that make up the other 80% of taxes paid.

But that isn't even where I had a problem with his statement... it's when he went on to say something along the lines of:

"this 47% are dependent in this country and vote democrat.  You're never going to get these voters.  They're going to continue voting for their dependency.  What you have to do is fight like hell for the other 53% of the vote... or at least 50.1% of it."

I'm slaughtering it, but you get the idea.  He couldn't have been more ridiculous in his analysis.  A very, very solid chunk of those 47% vote Republican, and if you believe this poll:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/resul ... polls.html

People who made over $200,000 broke slightly (52/46) for Obama in 2008.

[MachineGhost]

“People talk about medicinal marijuana. And you know, you hear that story that people who are sick need medicinal marijuana. But marijuana is the entry drug for people trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don't want medicinal marijuana; there are synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people who need it for prescription. Don't open the doorway to medicinal marijuana.”?

July 25, 2007, Romney speaking at a town hall meeting in Bedford, New Hampshire

“I believe marijuana should be illegal in our country. It is the pathway to drug usage by our society, which is a great scourge -- which is one of the great causes of crime in our cities, and I believe we are at a state where, of course, we are very concerned about people who are suffering, and there are various means of providing pain management.”?

October 4, 2007, Romney speaking to students at St. Anselm Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire

[moda0306]

Sorry, but that bolded line is completely false... you can easily argue we'd be in a pretty similar position, and some could likely articulate why we'd be worse off.

Especially if that marijuana crack-down nonsense is true.

Throw in an inflationist fed chairmen and/or drastic spending cuts and we'd be talking about a double-dip recession right now.

I don't see how its false when Obama has done nothing but fumble the ball constantly.  The marijuana thing would have really sucked but that's relatively a minor issue considering the real economic and foreign policy challenges we're facing that Obama has been (and is) woefully unprepared to handle.  Just look at his track record after six years in office.  The guy is a pussy and a joke.  As he likes to always say, "I may be naive..."  No shit, Mr. Obama!

Don't confuse Romney who is a right-of-center RINO with those right-wing austerity kooks.  Obama doesn't own it.  He may talk the talk, but his walk is lacking.  Shit, even Hillary has more balls.

So explain to me how certain events would have shaken out differently to the degree to which you could say with a straight face that:

"No one can contest that Romney would have been far, far preferable than Obama during the past three years."

That's quite an extreme change in conditions to assert that "no one can contest" with.

Obama has fumbled things, just like Bush did... just like Carter did.  I see nothing unique about it.  And how did Chris Rock say it??

"If in 6 years a Republican had gotten Bin Laden, brought gas to near $2, & unemployment under 6%, he'd already be on Mt. Rushmore & the dime"

[MachineGhost]

"this 47% are dependent in this country and vote democrat.  You're never going to get these voters.  They're going to continue voting for their dependency.  What you have to do is fight like hell for the other 53% of the vote... or at least 50.1% of it."

I'm slaughtering it, but you get the idea.  He couldn't have been more ridiculous in his analysis.  A very, very solid chunk of those 47% vote Republican, and if you believe this poll:

Yeah, well its fashionable to bag on the alleged dependency-class to upper class campaign donors.  The reason the 47% non-income taxpayers votes Republican is because a large majority, if not all, are in red states because such states all but don't believe in welfare.  It's just class elitism mythology.  The comment was supposed to be off camera too.  I don't find it surprising.  The problem is no one likes to hear the truth or what people really believe.

[MachineGhost]

So explain to me how certain events would have shaken out differently to the degree to which you could say with a straight face that:

The way I see it, a Romney Presidency would have been far, far more effective at what it set out to accomplish (yes, even on the marijuana issue, unfortunately).  That's the difference worldy executive experience brings to the table.  I said this before and I'll say it again more colorfully: OBAMA IS IN OVER HIS FUCKING HEAD!!!

[moda0306]

MG,

Well people don't like to hear the truth... but while Romney sounded "on" (like a bad-ass CEO), his analysis was way off.  1) 47% only applies to income tax and many are not what we'd call "dependent," necessarily.  2) Many of them vote Republican.  He was saying that because the 47% are all dependent democrats, that republicans have just a hair over 50% of the population to deal with.  This is (obviously) WAY off.  If all 47% voted democrat, and the rest of the country voted the same way they do, we'd have Dennis Kucinich as POTUS.

So the entire context of his using this "truth" was a jumbled mess.  However, he was saying it in a confident way to people that wanted to hear it.

[Mountaineer]

Here is one (slanted?  ) view of obama from a couple years ago.  Still seems to hold a lot of truth.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/scott/130301

Excerpt:
Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps because, as a child, he grew up around family members and mentors who instilled him with an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That bitterness seems not to have left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem – for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

So explain to me how certain events would have shaken out differently to the degree to which you could say with a straight face that:

The way I see it, a Romney Presidency would have been far, far more effective at what it set out to accomplish (yes, even on the marijuana issue, unfortunately).  That's the difference worldy executive experience brings to the table.  I said this before and I'll say it again more colorfully: OBAMA IS IN OVER HIS FUCKING HEAD!!!

What was it out to accomplish? 

Gas prices down?

Check.

Stock market WAY up?

Check.

Unemployment down and actual job growth?

Check.

Shrinking deficit to below 3% of GDP?

Check (I think :/)



Look I'm purposefully cherry-picking here.  I'm not trying to say Obama's been great... the economy is a hell of a lot bigger than any one President.  But whenever I press people on this stuff they can never give me a straight answer... WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WITH ROMNEY?

You can say Obama is in over his head.  I'd say almost all presidents are.  But that's irrelevent... the question is what actual measurable difference is that making?  If you can't point to something you think would be better and why, then (sorry to be rude, but) your original statement that "noone can contest" that Romney would be FAR, FAR better than Obama rings pretty hollow.

[MachineGhost]

Look I'm purposefully cherry-picking here.  I'm not trying to say Obama's been great... the economy is a hell of a lot bigger than any one President.  But whenever I press people on this stuff they can never give me a straight answer... WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WITH ROMNEY?

You can say Obama is in over his head.  I'd say almost all presidents are.  But that's irrelevent... the question is what actual measurable difference is that making?  If you can't point to something you think would be better and why, then (sorry to be rude, but) your original statement that "noone can contest" that Romney would be FAR, FAR better than Obama rings pretty hollow.

I don't credit gas prices being down, the stock market being up, or other irrelevant things like that to whoever the current President is.  And if that is all the Obama administration can claim after six years, that should tell you how bad they are reaching for any sign of credit.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two areas Romney would have been vastly better at....  downsizing/reforming the Federal government and our overseas military-intervention adventures.

Unless a leopard can change its spots, I can't wait until Obama and his admnistration are gone, because by the time his term is up, the world may be crashing and burning and we'll really need to elect someone who finally has a clue.  Unfortunately, politicians have an uncanny ability to adapt to unexpected events and adopt them as their own, so I'm not holding my breath just as long as we don't elect the next Hitler, Stalin or Mao.