The New and Improved Mitt Romney

[UConn James]

Link

 

Interestingly, this latest incarnation is probably the closest we have seen to the "real" Mitt Romney — who close observers believe doesn't care much about social issues, isn't very ideological, and revels in applying management skills to large organizations to help them achieve their goals and functions.

 

Ahead of releasing his book, titled No Apology, comes a pretty fair assessment of Romney from the "Boston Phoenix." That Romney should and would emphasize his pragmatist Mr. Fix-It background and step back from the social issues.

 

As someone who voted for Romney in the 2008 primary, I thought he was the best of the candidates out there (how much is that saying, though?) for a situation that many didn't want to see, hear or talk about... and that has now slapped us in the face.

 

Interesting read about the warts-and-all of the past, and some of the very early talk and stratagem for '12.

 

America needs a businessman who has directed a corporation to actual profits. America needs someone who entered an Olympics full of graft and scandal and scrubbed Salt Lake City down in short order and pulled off a decent Games. America could use someone who came into the final stages of the Big Dig and called it the bondoogle it was and started to get the department back into public control from it's "Authority" mess.

 

I'm sure buftex will make some remark on "Republican Hair."

[Magox]

Link

 

 

 

Ahead of releasing his book, titled No Apology, comes a pretty fair assessment of Romney from the "Boston Phoenix." That Romney should and would emphasize his pragmatist Mr. Fix-It background and step back from the social issues.

 

As someone who voted for Romney in the 2008 primary, I thought he was the best of the candidates out there (how much is that saying, though?) for a situation that many didn't want to see, hear or talk about... and that has now slapped us in the face.

 

Interesting read about the warts-and-all of the past, and some of the very early talk and stratagem for '12.

 

America needs a businessman who has directed a corporation to actual profits. America needs someone who entered an Olympics full of graft and scandal and scrubbed Salt Lake City down in short order and pulled off a decent Games. America could use someone who came into the final stages of the Big Dig and called it the bondoogle it was and started to get the department back into public control from it's "Authority" mess.

 

I'm sure buftex will make some remark on "Republican Hair."

I voted for him as well. He's my top choice, but the problem is winning the primaries. I've said it a thousand times that he would have a better shot at winning the presidency than winning the primaries.

 

If he were to be matched up against Obama in 2012, he would win hands down. He would garner close to 60% of the independents, and the GOP base will come out in droves to vote for anyone not named Obama.

 

Romney is what this country needs, which is someone who has a modicum of business acumen.

[John Adams]

I voted for him as well. He's my top choice, but the problem is winning the primaries. I've said it a thousand times that he would have a better shot at winning the presidency than winning the primaries.

 

If he were to be matched up against Obama in 2012, he would win hands down. He would garner close to 60% of the independents, and the GOP base will come out in droves to vote for anyone not named Obama.

 

Romney is what this country needs, which is someone who has a modicum of business acumen.

 

Very hard to get over the Mormon angle. They are a bunch of crazy MFers.

[Magox]

Very hard to get over the Mormon angle.

Thats the problem.

[murra]

Not a fan.

[John Adams]

Thats the problem.

 

Almost, but not quite, as damning as Palin's stupidty problem.

 

If the Reps don't put up a strong candidate and there's a viable 3rd option, Obama will beat the split Right/Independent vote, just like Clinton did when Perot sank Bush I.

[UConn James]

Very hard to get over the Mormon angle. They are a bunch of crazy MFers.

 

Did you read the "Skipping the South" section of the article? That's not set in stone, but as a strategy, it is wisest to not spend money where it didn't produce results before. Taken as a broad indication of governing philosophy, he's already smarter than 95% of other pols.

 

The rest of the country seems much more accepting of the individual, rather than pinning him to antiquated, extremist elements of a religion. The South largely votes socially, not fiscally. But that could change if Obama's economy keeps tanking or doesn't do anything but crater-plateau... which is a distinct possibility.

 

I don't subject candidates to a religious test. The issue should be who can run the government bureaucracy most efficiently and get business going again.

 

Frankly, to echo the

it's sad that some people's precious votes are bought so cheaply.

[John Adams]

Did you read the "Skipping the South" section of the article? That's not set in stone, but as a strategy, it is wisest to not spend money where it didn't produce results before. Taken as a broad indication of governing philosophy, he's already smarter than 95% of other pols.

 

The rest of the country seems much more accepting of the individual, rather than pinning him to antiquated, extremist elements of a religion. The South largely votes socially, not fiscally. But that could change if Obama's economy keeps tanking or doesn't do anything but crater-plateau... which is a distinct possibility.

 

I don't subject candidates to a religious test. The issue should be who can run the government bureaucracy most efficiently and get business going again.

 

Frankly, to echo the

it's sad that some people's precious votes are bought so cheaply.

 

Religion doesn't buy my precious vote but it turns me off. Those who preach and base decisions on their personal conversations with god (Bush) scare the !@#$ out of me. Those who believe that a guy looked into a magic hat with a special stone and found the new word of god (Mormons, Romney) also scare me.

 

That doesn't mean I would not necessarily vote for Romney. It does mean that Mormons are nucking futs.

[Alaska Darin]

It does mean that Mormons are nucking futs.

Pretty much all followers of anything are nucking futs.

[IDBillzFan]

Very hard to get over the Mormon angle. They are a bunch of crazy MFers.

And that's why he'll never make it past the primaries. The left already spends a bunch of time mocking Christians. Throw in some bigamy and caffeine misconceptions, and he's sunk before the boat even gets wet. The left would be mocking his religion so badly, it would make it look like they treated Palin with a featherduster.

[Nanker]

The lack of religious tolerance in America is astounding to me.

[PearlHowardman]

The left would be mocking his religion so badly, it would make it look like they treated Palin with a featherduster.

 

The candidate of the Left, Obama, hasn't done squat in over a year in office. It's simply because the Left couldn't run a Kool Aid stand. The Left will have no credibility in '12.

 

Hopefully the '12 campaign will focus on FISCAL COMPETENCE - Romney!

[Magox]

And that's why he'll never make it past the primaries. The left already spends a bunch of time mocking Christians. Throw in some bigamy and caffeine misconceptions, and he's sunk before the boat even gets wet. The left would be mocking his religion so badly, it would make it look like they treated Palin with a featherduster.

I don't believe so. The libs like to poke fun against Christian hypocrisy, not so much the Mormons. I don't see religion being a big problem for him if he can get past the primaries.

 

He's intelligent, looks presidential, has executive experience and knows a thing or two about business.

 

He would need a more traditional conservative as a running mate, maybe someone like a Huckabee or maybe even a Marco Rubio. Rubio is going to win the Senate race over Crist by a landslide, and this guy will get all the tea partiers, Evangelicals,tons of latino's, and I wouldn't be surprised to see alot of female voters turning out to vote for him if he were on the ticket as well.

[/dev/null]

I remember way back when before the 2008 primaries I had a friend who was hard core into John Edwards. I compared Edwards and Romney at the same time as both phony used car salesmen

 

I was proven right about Edwards.

 

Just a guess, but I suspect I'm just as right about Romney. Not saying he has a love child or anything, but both are phonies

[PearlHowardman]

The reason why Glenn Beck at FOX is so popular is because he focuses on numbers. Debt. Finance. Spending. Taxes. These are things that Americans are focusing on. These all fall into the specialty of Romney - managing MONEY!

 

Obama has 129 "Present" votes in the Illinois State Legislature, NOTHING in the US Senate and NOTHING since becoming POTUS 13 months ago.

 

Obama's got nothing other than a teleprompter. Obama is the anti-Bush but Bush is completely irrelevant now! Obama lacks the experience of getting things done and he also lacks the experience of knowing that when you don't get things done you LOSE!

[PearlHowardman]

I remember way back when before the 2008 primaries I had a friend who was hard core into John Edwards. I compared Edwards and Romney at the same time as both phony used car salesmen

 

I was proven right about Edwards.

 

Just a guess, but I suspect I'm just as right about Romney. Not saying he has a love child or anything, but both are phonies

 

No, Romney has a pretty decent resume! Both government and private sector.

[UConn James]

I remember way back when before the 2008 primaries I had a friend who was hard core into John Edwards. I compared Edwards and Romney at the same time as both phony used car salesmen

 

I was proven right about Edwards.

 

Just a guess, but I suspect I'm just as right about Romney. Not saying he has a love child or anything, but both are phonies

 

Do you mean phony in his personal life and how he projects it publicly?

 

Or the tweaks in his social policy positions over the years? I'd remind you that Reagan had many of the same changes, socially. I'd remind you that many people come to see things differently as we grow and experience the world.

 

Mass. voters are above all worried about a change to Roe v. Wade. They don't want government telling them what to do on social issues, but they are fully willing to elect fiscal-conservative Republicans as a check to Democrat control. But, to run there and have any chance of winning, you have to take a pledge. Much like Scott Brown did. It goes something like... 'I respect the established law of the right of a woman to chose. [Even though I personally disagree with abortion, I will make a contract as this state's representative to vote how the majority of the state wants me to vote on the issue.]' Include that second line if you must, at your own peril.

 

Is it a little disingenuous? You bet. But this pledge is about the only way to get elected there (and in much of the Northeast) when you have an R after your name.

 

On the health care initiative, Romney had a choice to either be uninvolved and it would pass in the legislature without input from the minority party, or work with the Mass. Democrats and since it was going to happen anyway, try to push it a little more toward reality. At this point (year 3) it has achieved high coverage rates, but it hasn't been a glaring success at cutting costs. This is the same chicken/egg problem as at the national level. Extend coverage first, or try to control costs first? I think the Mass experiment has shown, as national Republicans have said, that costs must come down first. Hasn't worked perfectly, but it's still relatively early in the life of this thing. I'm not sure how it's been administrated under Deval Patrick. Might take some solace that, as the article said, Romney was a major (unseen until election night) force behind Brown, who opposes a similar coverage-first, cut-costs-later plan nationwide. One hopes that some lessons have been learned.

[pBills]

Not a fan of Mitt.

[keepthefaith]

Not a fan of Mitt.

 

Of course you aren't. He's big on things like self sufficiency, personal responsibility, strong foreign policy, free markets and return on investment. We should continue to support cadidates that don't provide taxpayers with a return on their investment. Right?

 

I like Mitt a lot and feel he would be a good candidate and a good President. I'll probably get blasted for this, but the person I like best to be our next President, a guy who I think has the best grasp on the issues and could pound Obama in a debate is Newt, However, he's too polarizing and has some baggage. Romney overall would be a better candidate IMO.

[pBills]

Of course you aren't. He's big on things like self sufficiency, personal responsibility, strong foreign policy, free markets and return on investment. We should continue to support cadidates that don't provide taxpayers with a return on their investment. Right?

 

I like Mitt a lot and feel he would be a good candidate and a good President. I'll probably get blasted for this, but the person I like best to be our next President, a guy who I think has the best grasp on the issues and could pound Obama in a debate is Newt, However, he's too polarizing and has some baggage. Romney overall would be a better candidate IMO.

 

 

Foreign policy? Because he worked on the Salt Lake City Olympics? What else?

 

I'll give him credit on his business/economic background... have no problem with that. However he flip flops to much on social issues.