Leo Marks tried to warn you about Mitt Romney

[Juror#8]

If anyone remembers 2004, they'll realize that this 2012 campaign cycle is following a similar trend. The parallel is damn near exact.

 

But I can address similarities later, if anyone cares to taste that particular vintage of wine.

 

Concern# 1 - There is something that is not being discussed about Romney and his interest in leading this country. He is a business man. Was he a successfull businessman? Yes! But just like sports and athletics requires a discussion of an individual's skill and how well they translate to different levels, me thinks politics can benefit from a similar discussion.

 

Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. Will that corporate characteristic, if true, be an impediment to Romney's and by extension, the country's, success? Lee Iaccoa thought so.

 

Alright, so, where the !@#$ is Romney from again? Michigan, New Hampshire, Utah, Massachusetts? Does he really live anywhere? There was a time when the American upper class had roots to a community. Mitt Romney lives in some ruthless neo-cosmopolitan world where he has no roots or attachment to any particular community. Attachment to a community fosters a desire to improve the community. Romney has been so damn opportunistic that what he has gained in socio-economic stature, he has lost in connection, affiliation, familiarity, and membership.

 

Romney is an automaton. He is a technocrat. Nothing about him bespeaks much in the way of allegiance. It shows in his equivocations (oops, evolutions) throughout his political history. I sincerely worry about that.

 

On the topic of "evolutions," this new ad hurts:

 

 

He's certainly not a Norwegian Telemark Raider. Leo Marks can tell you that.

 

Concern #2 - business folks just don't seem to show well as President. Harding, Carter, Hoover, and W were pathetically bad presidents. H.W. wasn't "bad" but he wasn't memorable either - he was a one and done; this even though he had a successful war and a crumbling Berlin Wall on his side.

 

I wonder if concerns #1 and #2 are related. I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level. Academics seem to do fairly well. Business owners, not so much.

 

Can't seem to narrow this thought. It may require debate to focus it. Eh, just rantings I guess....

Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[jjamie12]

Why the complete and total focus on his 'business background'? Hasn't he done other things that are relevant to 'governing', as well?

 

We get it -- you think Romney will lose to Obama.

 

Thanks for starting another thread to tell us that again. I'm sure THIS time you'll get your point across more clearly.

[Jauronimo]

If anyone remembers 2004, they'll realize that this 2012 campaign cycle is following a similar trend. The parallel is damn near exact.

 

But I can address similarities later, if anyone cares to taste that particular vintage of wine.

 

Concern# 1 - There is something that is not being discussed about Romney and his interest in leading this country. He is a business man. Was he a successfull businessman? Yes! But just like sports and athletics requires a discussion of an individual's skill and how well they translate to different levels, me thinks politics can benefit from a similar discussion.

 

Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. Will that corporate characteristic, if true, be an impediment to Romney's and by extension, the country's, success? Lee Iaccoa thought so.

 

Alright, so, where the !@#$ is Romney from again? Michigan, New Hampshire, Utah, Massachusetts? Does he really live anywhere? There was a time when the American upper class had roots to a community. Mitt Romney lives in some ruthless neo-cosmopolitan world where he has no roots or attachment to any particular community. Attachment to a community fosters a desire to improve the community. Romney has been so damn opportunistic that what he has gained in socio-economic stature, he has lost in connection, affiliation, familiarity, and membership.

 

Romney is an automaton. He is a technocrat. Nothing about him bespeaks much in the way of allegiance. It shows in his equivocations (oops, evolutions) throughout his political history. I sincerely worry about that.

 

He's certainly not a Norwegian Telemark Raider. Leo Marks can tell you that.

 

Concern #2 - business folks just don't seem to show well as President. Harding, Carter, Hoover, and W were pathetically bad presidents. H.W. wasn't "bad" but he wasn't memorable either - he was a one and done; this even though he had a successful war and a crumbling Berlin Wall on his side.

 

I wonder if concerns #1 and #2 are related. I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level. Academics seem to do fairly well. Business owners, not so much.

 

Can't seem to narrow this thought. It may require debate to focus it. Eh, just rantings I guess....

Business doesn't operate that transparently either. Especially not the line of work that Romney specialized in, VC/PE. Taking over a failing company, identifying the root problems, developing feasible solutions, and more importantly, implementing your vision certainly doesn't occur in an 8 hour day. It takes years to realize results and requires tremendous foresight.

 

You've identified a few reasons as to why he might not win the nomination or the election, but I don't think any of the above is relflective of his ability to tackle the biggest turnaround play out there. Not all "businessmen" are created equal.

[DC Tom]

Business doesn't operate that transparently either. Especially not the line of work that Romney specialized in, VC/PE.

 

 

Or at the executive level that he operated at.

 

And what CEO makes a decision at 9am that shows a profit by 5pm?

[Juror#8]

Why the complete and total focus on his 'business background'? Hasn't he done other things that are relevant to 'governing', as well?

 

How well did he govern...in your estimation?

 

At any point from 03-07 did he govern to the left of his current policy proclamations....in your estimation?

 

You know what, nevermind. You just want to sleep in the echo chamber...ensconced amongst the comfort of voices that sing your lullaby.

 

Sleep love. I won't wake you.

 

We get it -- you think Romney will lose to Obama.

 

Huh? What? Where was that inferred? Did you come up with that from the many instances of me mentioning how he would operate AS PRESIDENT in my last post? So conceptually, how would that **** work? Some kinda weird European style run-off deal?

 

You gonna answer the question or just buzz around it and move on to some other witty, but incongruent, point.

 

Stop smearing **** jackass.

 

Thanks for starting another thread to tell us that again. I'm sure THIS time you'll get your point across more clearly.

 

Are you here to advance or muddle a debate? I want to discuss business attributes and whether or not they'll help or hurt a president. To that end, I provided some criticisms. You want to conflate this post with every other MR post ever written.

 

LINK THE POST THAT LIKEWISE MENTIONS MY POINTS SO THAT I CAN DELETE THIS ONE FOR BEING DUPLICATIVE.

 

Edited for tact.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

Edited for tact.

 

Tact? kitty. You extend your pinky finger when you drink you afternoon tea, too?

[IDBillzFan]

And what CEO makes a decision at 9am that shows a profit by 5pm?

Seriously. Just when I thought I'd read the most dumbass comment on this board, here comes a brand new idiotic nugget.

[Chef Jim]

 

And what CEO makes a decision at 9am that shows a profit by 5pm?

 

I guess a drug dealer could be considered a CEO.

[Juror#8]

Business doesn't operate that transparently either. Especially not the line of work that Romney specialized in, VC/PE. Taking over a failing company, identifying the root problems, developing feasible solutions, and more importantly, implementing your vision certainly doesn't occur in an 8 hour day. It takes years to realize results and requires tremendous foresight.

 

You've identified a few reasons as to why he might not win the nomination or the election, but I don't think any of the above is relflective of his ability to tackle the biggest turnaround play out there. Not all "businessmen" are created equal.

 

On your last point, I certainly agree. There are many intangibles, and I don't want to stereotype Romney into a category that doesn't take account of his uniquenesses and idiosyncratic distinctions.

 

But there is something to be said for buiness-persons NOT doing well in national politics. And it has to make you wonder, is there an endemic quality or characteristic that successfull business persons have that doesn't translate well to national politics?

 

There is a large sample to work from. VERY little success amongst business-persons.

 

And if we get into their ability to WIN a political nomination, the success pool shrinks even further. Of course there are the Corzines and Rick Scotts, but there are many more Perots, Forbes, and Fiorinas.

[Magox]

I would argue that being a Venture capitalist is probably the best private sector experience you could possibly have to be president.

 

What does a Venture capitalist do? Well, they apply capital and take some sort of ownership on either a start up or struggling company. Just for a little tidbit of information, close to 10% of all private sector jobs come through private equity/venture capitalism.

 

What would a venture capitalist attempt to do in a typical failing company? Identify waste,then eliminate it,identify best sources of demand, then innovate products or services to suffice that demand, streamline them, increase efficiency, market products , execute sales, maximize profits, reward and retain competent employees.

 

Mitt Romney was widely regarded as one of best in the business. There is a reason why he was called upon to help the Olympics, and it certainly wasn't because he was the son of daddy warbucks. He not only was an extremely successful venture capitalist, but he did turn what was about to be a very embarrassing Olympics for our country into a success. There was scandal, inefficiency and the Olympics was grossly overbudget. Under his leadership, it all turned around.

 

His experience as a venture capitalist helped make that happen.

 

So how could his experience as a venture capitalist help as President of the U.S?

 

Well, we are a country that is struggling with job creation, **** load of waste in government, lack of innovaton and a tremendous debt program.

 

His experience in venture capitalism and executive experience as governor of a blue state, which mean that he had to work across the aisle a good bit would be very well suited to address some of these issues.

 

Lets contrast that to President Obama. His experience was that he was on the faculty of Harvard, community organizer, state senator and served a little over half a term as Senator in which he never produced a meaningful piece of legislation and had one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. I would say that is an accurate description, wouldn't you agree?

 

Let's be real here, honestly, who is the more qualified person to address the economy and our debt? Seriously.

 

Not only was Obama woefully qualified to be president, but his body of work proves that.

 

I'm just trying to put things into perspective here.

 

And in regards to if he ran the governor as a true conservative, I could give two ***** about that. This conservative litmust test crap is a bunch of BS.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Magox

[Nanker]

If anyone remembers 2004, they'll realize that this 2012 campaign cycle is following a similar trend. The parallel is damn near exact.

 

But I can address similarities later, if anyone cares to taste that particular vintage of wine.

 

Concern# 1 - There is something that is not being discussed about Romney and his interest in leading this country. He is a business man. Was he a successfull businessman? Yes! But just like sports and athletics requires a discussion of an individual's skill and how well they translate to different levels, me thinks politics can benefit from a similar discussion.

 

Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. Will that corporate characteristic, if true, be an impediment to Romney's and by extension, the country's, success? Lee Iaccoa thought so.

 

Alright, so, where the !@#$ is Romney from again? Michigan, New Hampshire, Utah, Massachusetts? Does he really live anywhere? There was a time when the American upper class had roots to a community. Mitt Romney lives in some ruthless neo-cosmopolitan world where he has no roots or attachment to any particular community. Attachment to a community fosters a desire to improve the community. Romney has been so damn opportunistic that what he has gained in socio-economic stature, he has lost in connection, affiliation, familiarity, and membership.

 

Romney is an automaton. He is a technocrat. Nothing about him bespeaks much in the way of allegiance. It shows in his equivocations (oops, evolutions) throughout his political history. I sincerely worry about that.

 

On the topic of "evolutions," this new ad hurts:

 

youtube.com/watch?v=VZbA5RM97DI

 

He's certainly not a Norwegian Telemark Raider. Leo Marks can tell you that.

 

Concern #2 - business folks just don't seem to show well as President. Harding, Carter, Hoover, and W were pathetically bad presidents. H.W. wasn't "bad" but he wasn't memorable either - he was a one and done; this even though he had a successful war and a crumbling Berlin Wall on his side.

 

I wonder if concerns #1 and #2 are related. I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level. Academics seem to do fairly well. Business owners, not so much.

 

Can't seem to narrow this thought. It may require debate to focus it. Eh, just rantings I guess....

 

Except perhaps that he's been a loyal husband to one woman for over 40 years, has raised a family of five, and is a devout member of the LDS faith for his entire life. He doesn't smoke, drink alcohol and hardly swears. So yeah, I guess nothing about him is faithful or worth emulating. So pillory him if you must that he was born in Michigan, has family roots in Utah - where he also went to college, and later he moved his family to Massachusetts so he could attend Law and Business school at Harvard (esteemed President BO's alma mater) and later bought homes in NH and California. For someone like you who probably leaves your county twice a year that probably seems excessive. I get it. You also forgot to mention that he's fluent in French and spent nearly three years there. Sacre Bleu! Guess what - he has more money than you do. Barry does too. Get over it.

 

Academics like Woodrow Wilson or George Washington who got his surveyor's certificate from William and Mary? Perhaps you meant former Sheriff of Erie County and Buffalo Mayor Grover Cleveland. He was indeed a trustee of Princeton University, but alas he never graduated from college. Neither did Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson nor Harry Truman.

[Juror#8]

Really folks....

 

Profit and loss, black and red, is acknowledged daily by the markets. A decision made today can have a deleterious impact, and tank what was a profit yesterday, by lunchtime.

 

There are business-persons on this board right?

 

I know we have an historian-in-residence at Oxford (Tom), an Executive Chef at the French Laundry (Chef Jim), and international traveler and independently wealthy film connoisseur(LABillzFan) but I was hoping that business folks could interject.

 

Youre used to running a big corporation. When you make a decision in the morning, you either earn a profit that day or you dont. You cant run a government that way. It would drive you crazy. You wouldnt last a year. Youd have a heart attack because of the frustration.

 

-Lee Iacocca (1988)

Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[GG]

Or at the executive level that he operated at.

 

And what CEO makes a decision at 9am that shows a profit by 5pm?

 

Commodities trader.

[Juror#8]

Except perhaps that he's been a loyal husband to one woman for over 40 years, has raised a family of five, and is a devout member of the LDS faith for his entire life. He doesn't smoke, drink alcohol and hardly swears. So yeah, I guess nothing about him is faithful or worth emulating. So pillory him if you must that he was born in Michigan, has family roots in Utah - where he also went to college, and later he moved his family to Massachusetts so he could attend Law and Business school at Harvard (esteemed President BO's alma mater) and later bought homes in NH and California. For someone like you who probably leaves your county twice a year that probably seems excessive. I get it. You also forgot to mention that he's fluent in French and spent nearly three years there. Sacre Bleu! Guess what - he has more money than you do. Barry does too. Get over it.

\

 

I really don't care that he has been faithful to his wife. My point had nothing to do about his nuclear family. You must have missed that.

 

Oh you must be focusing on the "nothing about him..." language. Fair enough. Figured you would have understood the context...since everything previous to that in my post concerned Romney's Locus in Quo.

 

Academics like Woodrow Wilson or George Washington who got his surveyor's certificate from William and Mary? Perhaps you meant former Sheriff of Erie County and Buffalo Mayor Grover Cleveland. He was indeed a trustee of Princeton University, but alas he never graduated from college. Neither did Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson nor Harry Truman.

 

I made two points:

 

1. Business persons haven't done well in national politics.

 

2. Academics largely have.

 

You didn't contest either of those points. The only thing you did was bring up the uncontested, unchallenged, heretofore irrelevant point that there were people who were presidents who were neither academics or business persons.

 

!@#$ing bravo!

Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[Nanker]

Magox - President BO graduated from Harvard Law - as did Mitt Romney - who also got an MBA from their business school.

BO was a "Senior Lecturer" at the Chicago School of Law.

 

\

 

I really don't care that he has been faithful to his wife. My point had nothing to do about his nuclear family. You must have missed that.

 

Oh you must be focusing on the "nothing about him..." Figured you would have understood the context...since everything previous to that in my post concerned Romney's Locus in Quo.

 

 

 

I made two points:

 

1. Business persons haven't done well in national politics.

 

2. Academics largely have.

 

You didn't contest either of those points. The only thing you did was bring up the uncontested, unchallenged, heretofore irrelevant point that there were people who were presidents who were neither academics or business persons.

 

!@#$ing bravo!

Who are the academics of which you speak? I tried to list a few.

[Buftex]

Seriously. Just when I thought I'd read the most dumbass comment on this board, here comes a brand new idiotic nugget.

 

 

And this from the current king of the idiot nugget!

[1billsfan]

If anyone remembers 2004, they'll realize that this 2012 campaign cycle is following a similar trend. The parallel is damn near exact.

 

But I can address similarities later, if anyone cares to taste that particular vintage of wine.

 

Concern# 1 - There is something that is not being discussed about Romney and his interest in leading this country. He is a business man. Was he a successfull businessman? Yes! But just like sports and athletics requires a discussion of an individual's skill and how well they translate to different levels, me thinks politics can benefit from a similar discussion.

 

Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. Will that corporate characteristic, if true, be an impediment to Romney's and by extension, the country's, success? Lee Iaccoa thought so.

 

Alright, so, where the !@#$ is Romney from again? Michigan, New Hampshire, Utah, Massachusetts? Does he really live anywhere? There was a time when the American upper class had roots to a community. Mitt Romney lives in some ruthless neo-cosmopolitan world where he has no roots or attachment to any particular community. Attachment to a community fosters a desire to improve the community. Romney has been so damn opportunistic that what he has gained in socio-economic stature, he has lost in connection, affiliation, familiarity, and membership.

 

Romney is an automaton. He is a technocrat. Nothing about him bespeaks much in the way of allegiance. It shows in his equivocations (oops, evolutions) throughout his political history. I sincerely worry about that.

 

On the topic of "evolutions," this new ad hurts:

 

youtube.com/watch?v=VZbA5RM97DI

 

He's certainly not a Norwegian Telemark Raider. Leo Marks can tell you that.

 

Concern #2 - business folks just don't seem to show well as President. Harding, Carter, Hoover, and W were pathetically bad presidents. H.W. wasn't "bad" but he wasn't memorable either - he was a one and done; this even though he had a successful war and a crumbling Berlin Wall on his side.

 

I wonder if concerns #1 and #2 are related. I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level. Academics seem to do fairly well. Business owners, not so much.

 

Can't seem to narrow this thought. It may require debate to focus it. Eh, just rantings I guess....

 

 

Americans clearly don't care if a presidential hopeful has multiple places and/or countries of origin.

[UConn James]

Can't seem to narrow this thought. It may require debate to focus it. Eh, just rantings I guess....

 

No stevestojan. Maybe you should come back when you have two brain cells to rub together.

 

This may have some direction/basis in reality if Romney had no experience other than as a CEO. But as it stands, you don't acknowledge that he led an Olympic Games that was $800M in the hole from corruption and graft when he got there and which ended up making $300M in an era when almost EVERY Olympic endeavor has lost money hand over fist and any city and nation that bids for it looks upon it as a tourism advertising effort. You write your crap as if Romeny didn't have to deal with construction, budget, contracts / litigation, and security/terrorism issues a few months after 9/11. He then was elected governor of a state, and brought it back to fiscal sanity, wrapped up the Big Dig, responded to major flooding in 2005 when we in the northeast had 20 straight days of rain including dam breaks that threatened a 20,000-population city, he did the best he could with an 85% Democrat state legislature... and the place didn't turn into a Mormon Theocracy.

 

Businessperson or not, Romney has had success at every increased-responsibility challenge he's ever faced. The Peter Principle hasn't hit him yet.

 

Pres. Obama, on the other hand, has largely proven to be out of his depth. How has being an academic helped him? If he actually had a stevestojan-sliver of experience in the Real World where you actually have to produce a product, have to own fiscal responsibility and the realities that irresponsibility causes, and not just blame other people for every !@#$ing problem... this country might be able to go somewhere.

 

I don't get your statement about having multiple places where he's lived/worked/owns a house. This is 2011. Obama used his moving around as an argument in his favor vis. that he could relate to different groups of people (Hawai'i, Indonesia, Kansas, Illinois, D.C.). How doesn't this apply to Romney as a positive, other than you & the Left saying the case is different for anyone with an R after their name? This point alone proves that you're a !@#$ing idiot who's just throwing stevestojan out there and basically created a RomneyBad thread so you could link a smarmy video.

[IDBillzFan]

Profit and loss, black and red, is acknowledged daily by the markets. A decision made today can have a deleterious impact, and tank what was a profit yesterday, by lunchtime.

 

There are business-persons on this board right?

If you're talking in generalities, like your quote from Iacocca, then yes, a decision you make this morning can affect what you've gained in the past and what you will gain in the future. But if you think the average business owner wakes up, goes to work at 9 a.m and makes a decision that he hopes will deliver him the profits he needs to sustain his company, by 5 p.m. no less, then yes, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read here.

[Juror#8]

 

Who are the academics of which you speak? I tried to list a few.

 

1. Thomas Jefferson

2. Franklin Roosevelt

3. Teddy Roosevelt

4. James Madison

5. Woodrow Wilson

 

...