Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[apeiron]

Actually I am saying what I said.

So what is your point exactly?

 

[Office_Shredder]

He's saying that people make posts claiming to speak on behalf of the entire planet

 

[apeiron]

He's saying that people make posts claiming to speak on behalf of the entire planet

I'd call that supplying context to balance a personal opinion. But still not sure how that relates to AlephZero's reply then.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'd call that supplying context to balance a personal opinion. But still not sure how that relates to AlephZero's reply then.

The rest of the world tends to be interested in whether a potential US president actually knows where the rest of the world is.

Alternative hypothesis: a lot of people don't care

 

[MarcoD]

Most people I know don't care about it. Either they don't care, or they'll put a US president into one of the US stereotypes available to them.

The discussions here are interesting to me since I am usually clueless why certain people get elected anywhere. And US politics are pretty singular to the European style.

(They'll follow the news, of course. But it's like watching the weather for tomorrow. Will it be rain or sunshine?)

 

[apeiron]

Alternative hypothesis: a lot of people don't care

So how are you going to test your hypothesis? TV news coverage any indication?

There is almost daily coverage of the Republican primaries on New Zealand TV news. Would even the result of a New Zealand (or Bratislavian, etc) general election make it on to US screens?

 

[turbo]

We're drifting away from the central focus of the thread (Romney's candidacy) but this is an important point. The fact is that it is of great importance to foreign affairs who becomes president of the US. As the 600 pound gorilla in the room, the US is scary to others. We have a huge military, and the last Republican president didn't hesitate to use it instead of diplomacy. People (all over the world) deserve to have us vet our nominees and candidates and vote responsibly.

 

[mheslep]

So what is your point exactly?

apeiron I apologize for being so glib. To much politics. Yes, I mean that while one make an argument, with some work, that this or that might be relevant *should be* relevant to others besides ourselves, one can not also speak for others, much less the entire world.

Moving on...

 

[WhoWee]

Oh, please. Until this thread, I didn't even know he had anything to do with the Olympics. Tell me again what medals he won, I've forgotten.

Anyway, whatever he did must have been a failure, considering they are having to rerun the whole games again in London this year ...

I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.

"SALT LAKE CITY — Mitt Romney walked onto the Olympic stage in 1999 a rich businessman still smarting from losing his first bid for public office. He walked off, three years later, a star-polished candidate who would be elected governor of Massachusetts in a matter of months. This was the place of his emergence and his transition.

In rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, which had been tarnished by scandal, Mr. Romney learned the ways of Washington and the hurly-burly of politics, mastered the news media, built a staff of loyalists and made fund-raising connections in Utah that have proven vital to his presidential campaign."

 

[Hobin]

Hobin, if I may:

Do you think it important to poll the American viewpoint when assessing PM Rutte? Or, say, UK or French or Russian opinion?

Perhaps my point was unclear. I don't think it's a point that matters overly much. However, it can make a difference in matters of diplomacy. Thus, all else being equal, I would prefer a PM who's more popular in other countries to a PM the people in another country hate. Isn't that quite obvious?

Now, as for my original point, *most* of the people I know in my country prefer Obama over, well, any Republican. Like I said, I know relatively little people compared to the population of an entire country, so I'm sure this isn't representative.

 

[Chemicist]

I am not a fan of him. Only reason he would win is his money. Welcome to America.

 

[Evo]

I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.

"SALT LAKE CITY — Mitt Romney walked onto the Olympic stage in 1999 a rich businessman still smarting from losing his first bid for public office. He walked off, three years later, a star-polished candidate who would be elected governor of Massachusetts in a matter of months. This was the place of his emergence and his transition.

In rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, which had been tarnished by scandal, Mr. Romney learned the ways of Washington and the hurly-burly of politics, mastered the news media, built a staff of loyalists and made fund-raising connections in Utah that have proven vital to his presidential campaign."

Or an oportunist that found a way to regain favor after losing the Senate race in Mass?

Romney: Olympic savior or opportunist?

In his book, he takes great pains to attribute the success of the Games to the team he and his predecessors at SLOC put together — from supportive federal officials in Washington, D.C., to a volunteer corps of 26,000 in the Beehive State. He acknowledged his responsibility was big — as the face of the Games, the herald of its values and the guarantor of a pledge to deliver the event on budget — but said that his high-exposure role was necessary to distinguish the new-and-improved SLOC from the old corrupt one.

Such high-minded pronouncements do not ring entirely true to two of Romney’s more vocal local critics, who argue he exaggerated SLOC’s problems to make himself look better when Salt Lake City’s Olympics rebounded.

Ken Bullock, who represented the Utah League of Cities and Towns on SLOC’s board, said “Romney was a great face for the Games. He deserves credit, just not all the credit he’s claiming.

“We did not have a crisis in hosting or managing the Olympics. It was a crisis of image, a crisis related to the IOC. That’s not to say he didn’t do a good job and play a vital role,” Bullock said. “But so did [bid leader] Tom Welch. Tom was a great visionary. He displayed the tenacity, convictions and passion to pursue it. He’s forgotten. And Frank Joklik? With his engineering background, he put the scaffolding together. Mitt did a nice job putting meat on the bones.”

Steve Pace, a studious skeptic whose scandal-inspired “Slalom and Gomorrah” T-shirt quickly caught Romney’s eye, conceded SLOC’s new leader “did an incredible job and built bridges.”

“But Mitt’s efforts here,” Pace said, “were more about Mitt than the greater glory of the Olympics or helping out Utah.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53441281-78/games-lake-mitt-olympic.html.csp?page=3

 

[WhoWee]

Or an oportunist that found a way to regain favor after losing the Senate race in Mass?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53441281-78/games-lake-mitt-olympic.html.csp?page=3

I'm not certain an opportunist would have ended with a favorable outcome - given the challenge of running the post-9/11 Olympics. IMO - strong leaders acknowledge the assistance of their associates.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it will be Mittens vs Obama in Nov.

 

[lisab]

I think it will be Mittens vs Obama in Nov.

I think so too. Had Santorum won Michigan there would be doubt in my mind about it, but now I think it will be Romney.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.

Quick! Name the people who managed the 2000, 98, 96 olympics. No googling!

Of course nobody knows who ran the Olympics most years. Americans only know about 2002 because Romney's in the news, and he's not nearly as visible in other countries

I think so too. Had Santorum won Michigan there would be doubt in my mind about it, but now I think it will be Romney.

People try to read too much into a 3 percent win in a single state. Romney's dad was freaking governor of Michigan for six years, how did he not destroy all comers there? Clearly he's not very popular, especially considering that Michigan isn't a state full of Santorum's brand of religious conservatives

 

[turbo]

I'm surprised that Mitt didn't get smashed in Michigan after his comments about letting the US auto-makers fail. Yes, his father was an auto executive and a very popular governor, but don't Republicans follow the campaign? It's one thing for other GOP candidates to bash Obama for bailing out the auto industry, but Mitt should have known better.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm surprised that Mitt didn't get smashed in Michigan after his comments about letting the US auto-makers fail.

Did Mitt Romney make comments "about letting the US auto-makers fail" - or did he say the bankruptcy laws should be followed? Please support your post with his actual comment(s).

 

[turbo]

Suggested reading:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...ng-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

 

[WhoWee]

Suggested reading:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...ng-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

Here's the op-ed piece from 2008 that started the discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

"It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. "

 

[WhoWee]

Suggested reading:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...ng-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

Please cite the (Romney) quote that supports your - IMO misleading - statement.

 

[turbo]

Read this.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romneys-underpants-gnome-defense-on-auto-bailout.php

“If they go through that managed bankruptcy and shed the excessive cost that’s been put on them by the UAW and by their own mismanagement, then if they need help coming out of bankruptcy, the government can provided guarantees and get them back on their feet,” he said. “No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear. That was my view. Go through bankruptcy. When that happens, then the market can help lift them out.”

If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers. As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months, it is reasonable to expect that the managers of those trusts will re-capitalize by selling off some of that stock.

 

[WhoWee]

Read this.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romneys-underpants-gnome-defense-on-auto-bailout.php

“If they go through that managed bankruptcy and shed the excessive cost that’s been put on them by the UAW and by their own mismanagement, then if they need help coming out of bankruptcy, the government can provided guarantees and get them back on their feet,” he said. “No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear. That was my view. Go through bankruptcy. When that happens, then the market can help lift them out.”

If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers. As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months, it is reasonable to expect that the managers of those trusts will re-capitalize by selling off some of that stock.

Your specific post was "I'm surprised that Mitt didn't get smashed in Michigan after his comments about letting the US auto-makers fail." my bold

I'm sorry turbo, but the statement "“No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear. That was my view. Go through bankruptcy. When that happens, then the market can help lift them out.”" does not support your misleading post - IMO.

 

[mheslep]

...

If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers.

How is it that any other capital intensive company manages to go through Chapter 11, come out and keep operating? Why not apply those arguments to http://thepage.time.com/2011/11/29/american-airlines-files-for-bankruptcy/ (Wall street demands, liquidation, all jobs wiped out) and see how they hold up? Does American still have 600 some planes in the air every day?

As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months,...

Who would not appear to come roaring back if $80Billion was put on their books?

 

[turbo]

Who would not appear to come roaring back if $80Billion was put on their books?

When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.

If these huge companies were allowed to fail (forced into Chapter 11) it would have impacted millions of people all over the country. Auto-companies have very long supply lines and very long lead-times before they receive materials and the suppliers are paid. Anybody who manufactures foams, fabrics, electronic components, and a zillion other things that Detroit needs would go catatonic if their biggest customer went into Chapter 11, because they would never know if they were going to get paid pennies on the dollar or anything at all. That means that all of their employees would be out on the street until things were resolved. Saving the auto-industry was the prudent thing to do, and I think the bail-out was structured with some semblance of fairness.

 

[turbo]

Disclaimer: My younger (much!) brother runs a small plant that makes extruded parts for many industries, but the auto industry is a big customer/field. Maybe it doesn't look intuitive, but letting the auto industry fail could have cost jobs here in Maine.

 

[WhoWee]

When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.

If these huge companies were allowed to fail (forced into Chapter 11) it would have impacted millions of people all over the country. Auto-companies have very long supply lines and very long lead-times before they receive materials and the suppliers are paid. Anybody who manufactures foams, fabrics, electronic components, and a zillion other things that Detroit needs would go catatonic if their biggest customer went into Chapter 11, because they would never know if they were going to get paid pennies on the dollar or anything at all. That means that all of their employees would be out on the street until things were resolved. Saving the auto-industry was the prudent thing to do, and I think the bail-out was structured with some semblance of fairness.

This post continues to be misleading as GM filed Chapter 11 in 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...les-for-Chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection.html

Btw - I noticed your list of affiliated companies that might be injured in a bankruptcy didn't include auto dealers or their employees.

 

[turbo]

Jeez! My post was not intended to be an encyclopedia. I focused on the supply-side of the chain because that's where the jobs are. It takes millions of people to produce the parts and materials needed to build cars. It does not take millions of people to sell them, though I figure you already know that.

 

[Evo]

Enough of this nitpicking, please.

 

[Gokul43201]

A reason the lack of support for the auto-bailout didn't hurt Romney much might be that Santorum didn't support it either (nor did Paul; don't know about Gingrich). The difference between them - one that Santorum tried to point out, but I don't think it gained much traction - was that Santorum did not support the Wall Street bailout either. He tried pointing out the seeming inconsistency in Romney's position (approve bailing out Wall Street but not Detroit), but I don't think that's an argument with much political sway among a typical primary electorate.

 

[WhoWee]

I think Romney framed this op-ed in a way that will help independents understand his concern about the auto bailout - in the general election.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120214/OPINION01/202140336

"Romney op-ed: U.S. autos bailout 'was crony capitalism on a grand scale'
"

"A labor union that had contributed millions to Democrats and his election campaign was granted an ownership share of Chrysler and a major stake in GM, two flagships of the industry.The U.S. Department of Treasury — American taxpayers — was asked to become a majority stockholder of GM. And a politically connected and ethically challenged Obama-campaign contributor, the financier Steven Rattner, was asked to preside over all this as auto czar.
This was crony capitalism on a grand scale. The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.
My view at the time — and I set it out plainly in an op-ed in the New York Times — was that "the American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing." Instead of a bailout, I favored "managed bankruptcy" as the way forward.
Managed bankruptcy may sound like a death knell. But in fact, it is a way for a troubled company to restructure itself rapidly, entering and leaving the courtroom sometimes in weeks or months instead of years, and then returning to profitable operation.
In the case of Chrysler and GM, that was precisely what the companies needed. Both were saddled with an accumulation of labor, pension, and real estate costs that made them unsustainable. Health and retirement benefits alone amounted to an extra $2,000 baked into the price of every car they produced.
Shorn of those excess costs, and shorn of the bungling management that had driven them into a deep rut, they could re-emerge as vibrant and competitive companies. Ultimately, that is what happened. The course I recommended was eventually followed. GM entered managed bankruptcy in June 2009 and exited it a month later in July.
The Chrysler timeline was similarly swift. But something else happened along the way that was truly egregious. Before the companies were allowed to enter and exit bankruptcy, the U.S. government swept in with an $85 billion sweetheart deal disguised as a rescue plan.
By the spring of 2009, instead of the free market doing what it does best, we got a major taste of crony capitalism, Obama-style.
Thus, the outcome of the managed bankruptcy proceedings was dictated by the terms of the bailout. Chrysler's "secured creditors," who in the normal course of affairs should have been first in line for compensation, were given short shrift, while at the same time, the UAWs' union-boss-controlled trust fund received a 55 percent stake in the firm.
The pensions of union workers and retirees at Delphi, GM's parts supplier, were left untouched, while some 21,000 non-union salaried employees saw their pensions slashed and lost their life and health insurance. And so on and so forth across the industry.
While a lot of workers and investors got the short end of the stick, Obama's union allies — and his major campaign contributors — reaped reward upon reward, all on the taxpayer's dime."

 

[mheslep]

When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.

Ever heard the "we'll make it up on volume" joke? Moving a lot of cars is not the same as making money on a lot of cars, which GM can do now thanks to my tax dollars buying off their debt load and taxes.

 

[BobG]

People try to read too much into a 3 percent win in a single state. Romney's dad was freaking governor of Michigan for six years, how did he not destroy all comers there? Clearly he's not very popular, especially considering that Michigan isn't a state full of Santorum's brand of religious conservatives

Romney's dad was governor in the 60's. That probably helped him with the over-50 crowd, but most voters probably wouldn't know who George Romney was, except for Mitt Romney running for President.

But, Mitt Romney seems to have a problem capitalizing on his big wins. Romney barely edges out Santorum, but the delegate battle is a draw.

No, wait, Romney wins the delegate battle by 2 delegates! Because Romney's dad used to be governor and so Michigan changes the rules after the fact so Romney can get a win?

No, not really. Michigan had already spelled out how they would handle the special case of losing half their delegates and it's the rules for the special condition that give Romney a 2 delegate victory. In other words, the new rules they passed for delegates were overcome by events (losing half their delegates) before they could even be implemented unless the RNC restores Michigan's full delegate count, in which case the original new rules will apply with Romney still eking out a narrow victory in delegate count. Huh?

They didn't mess this up as bad as Democrats did in the 2008 primary, but Michigan seems to have a hard time finding a good way to make themselves an early primary.

At least everyone understands who won Arizona.

 

[WhoWee]

The Republican base doesn't have lukewarm support for Romney because he's too far Right - do they? IMO - they think he's too moderate - flipped back and forth on issues - much like the Independents.

IMO - this will help Mitt win the Independent and moderate Democrat vote in the fall - the Republicans will hold their nose and vote against President Obama regardless of the candidate.

 

[Number Nine]

The Republican base doesn't have lukewarm support for Romney because he's too far Right - do they? IMO - they think he's too moderate - flipped back and forth on issues - much like the Independents.

IMO - this will help Mitt win the Independent and moderate Democrat vote in the fall - the Republicans will hold their nose and vote against President Obama regardless of the candidate.

I don't think very many Democrats and independents consider Romney to be a "moderate"; certainly not as far right as the more fashionable Republican candidates, but not a moderate from the perspective of less "conservative Christian"-inclined Americans.