Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[turbo]

According to recent polls, Gingrich has pulled even with Romney in SC. It should be noted that the polls were conducted before Gingrich's second wife came out in an interview and said that he doesn't have the character to be President.

 

[Evo]

More on Romney's Cayman Island money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566

 

[turbo]

They both have SO much baggage!

 

[turbo]

Man! Romney was dead-set against tax-havens when he was governor of MA. It seems that he and Bain Capital are quite fond of them though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/mitt-romney-tax-havens_n_1216558.html

This is not going to play too well with people that were "downsized" out of their jobs due to predatory take-overs. IF the press is willing to pay a little time and attention to the issue and educate the unwashed masses.

 

[Mad_Miller20]

I think that Romney has a good chance against Obama. Maybe I'm the only one on here because no one seems to be defending him. What do y'all think?

I might be outnumbered here but I think anything is better than who we have now.

 

[skeptic2]

Why do you think he has a better chance against Obama than anyone else? Is it possible that the reason Romney is so far ahead is that the conservatives are splitting their votes between multiple candidates? If it were just Romney vs. Gingrich or just Romney vs. Santorum, do you think he would be so far ahead?

 

[mheslep]

Whoops! I was actually thinking of Rick Santorum on that one. Sorry. I would edit my post if I could.

Or perhaps it was Michelle Bachman on that one.

 

[dydxforsn]

Whoops! I was actually thinking of Rick Santorum on that one. Sorry. I would edit my post if I could.

That wasn't actually Rick Santorum who said that either, it was one of his campaign members in a private email a year or so ago.

 

[skeptic2]

The good: Romney is frank about his views, which I respect. He plainly says that he is against ... medical marijuana...

Romney is even against coffee, is he not?

 

[KingNothing]

That wasn't actually Rick Santorum who said that either, it was one of his campaign members in a private email a year or so ago.

Really, hmm. I definitely read an article that said Rick said it himself. Sad what journalism is coming to these days!

 

[Rob D]

Gov. Romney merely appears the most reasonable and pragmatic of the GOP candidates. His business credentials are strong and isn't that the principal problem the country faces right now? Near as I can tell none of those other guys know diddly-poop about how business really works and how to turn failing institutions around.

Throughout history those able to choose picked leaders who fit the circumstances of the times. To do otherwise, to choose a candidate based on ideology, is self-defeating. As a secondary criteria I would like a social liberal but first we need a fiscal and constitutional conservative. We need to restore faith in our financial and regulatory institutions.

As for the other stuff; if you don't like gay marriage then don't do it; if you don't like abortions, don't have one; if you don't like cigarettes, don't smoke them; if you don't like porn, don't watch it. Mostly, if you don't want your rights taken away, don't take away those of others.

Thus Endeth the Rant,
RD

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't think you're going to restore faith in any financial or regulatory institutions at this point. It's quite clear what they stand for, and it's not something that inspires faith (at least not in me).

 

[KingNothing]

Gov. Romney merely appears the most reasonable and pragmatic of the GOP candidates. His business credentials are strong and isn't that the principal problem the country faces right now?

I don't think business credentials and ability to revamp the economy are interchangeable. The government isn't a business. That is, their goal shouldn't be maximum profit. I think people's concern are not with a rich man's business credentials, but his motivations. If his goal truly was the best for Americans, that's great, but I am concerned that his goals would be for himself.

 

[Rob D]

I don't think business credentials and ability to revamp the economy are interchangeable. The government isn't a business. That is, their goal shouldn't be maximum profit. I think people's concern are not with a rich man's business credentials, but his motivations. If his goal truly was the best for Americans, that's great, but I am concerned that his goals would be for himself.

So King, I cannot fully counter your concerns. Nor would i want to. We all most probably chose this forum because we wanted to confer with those others of a scientific bent. We have a, perhaps, different way of llooking the world, more critical, more skeptical and more demanding of proof.

Applying all that, I must admit a certain reluctance to take the Gov. at face value although he seems like a decent guy to me. My instinct is bouyed by my almost instant judgments of Mr. Obama's character which have proved to be, for the most part, accurate. But that's not very scientific. Romney has yet to be tested in the national stage, but there's lots of data from his other work. Those data would indicate that he acquitted himself admirably. We elected Obama with nothing like that degree of scrutiny. Let's see what the American electorate will do with a much richer data field.

RD

 

[mheslep]

No the government is not a business. However, government leadership should understand business and the drag government places on business, especially small business. They should understand why an employer hires somebody, what works against hiring. That applies now more than ever given unprecedented government invasions into the private economy. The current administration, and the government at large, seems to operate as if the private economy is some giant t-shirt factory: of no real importance to things that 'matter', aside from paying taxes to run the government and employ people not already working for government.

[/PLAIN]
For example:

In my own business, securities regulations have prohibited me from hiring brokers for more than three years. I was even fined fifteen thousand dollar expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008. In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold.

But President Obama can see no bad regulation, no downside, here in this Kansas speech where he makes reference to himself 23 times:

...For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors...

... Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?

Audience: No!

Me: the government was in the business of bundling mortgages, collecting debts, (it still is); as well as making loose money, anointing the rating agencies, setting flimsy home loan terms (it still does).

 

[ginru]

I keep noticing a continuous consequence from the damsel-in-distress, reactionary impulses of voters. It seemed like after Clinton, the country was polarized and desperate for something that would bring us back together. Along came Bush and his "Compassionate Conservatism" and enough people bought into it.

After 8 years of Bush, the country was even more divided with a weaker economy and tarnished image worldwide. Along comes Obama with a message of "Hope and Change" and again the people buy into it as it feels like just the perfect remedy.

Now Romney is saying that he has the right stuff to fix our current economic problems as he knows how to create jobs as a successful businessman. Once again, it seems like enough people are buying into it. So each time we desperately look for a Superman solution to our immediate problems and end up disappointed once the perfect packaging falls away.

Personally, my Spidey-sense keeps tingling whenever Romney talks. Something tells me he's just as shifty as the previous Supermen. He actually reminds me of a high school classmate of mine who ran for every club President position because it would look good on his college applications. He hardly ever showed up for the grunt work but of course, he was always present for yearbook photo ops. Both he and Romney give off that fake, CCR's 'Fortunate Son' vibe to me.

Granted, that's just an instinctive dislike I have for plastic political types, but I don't think anything will change under him except the direction of public finger pointing. Sure, Flip Flopney will talk a good game of being frank and earnest with the people. As a governor, he played Frank and as a president he'll be Ernest. Regardless, I feel the country will continue to be plagued by divisive politics, inconclusive wars and an overall aimless direction. Just more of the same, really.

 

[gravenewworld]

http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/680195957

Perhaps the most legally thorny was Bain Capital's 1989 purchase of Damon Corp., a Needham medical testing firm that later pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government of $25 million and paid a record $119 million fine.

Romney sat on Damon's board. During Romney's tenure, Damon executives submitted bills to the government for millions of unnecessary blood tests. Romney and other board members were never implicated.

More than a decade later,when Romney was in pursuit of the Massachusetts governorship, his Democratic opponent Shannon O'Brien accused him of lax oversight at Damon and failing to report the fraud.

Romney replied that he had helped uncover the illegal activity at Damon, asking the board's lawyers to investigate. As a result, he said, the board took "corrective action" before selling the company in 1993 to Corning Inc.

But court records suggest that the Damon executives' scheme continued throughout Bain's ownership, and prosecutors credited Corning, not Romney, with cleaning up the situation. Bain, meanwhile, tripled its investment.

Romney personally reaped $473,000.

I hope the gop is dumb enough to elect Romney because he will lose. Romney is another white collar criminal like the ones who tanked the economy in 2008 that know how to finagle the loopholes enough to not get arrested. Not to mention he has millions in offshore accounts most likely to hide from paying taxes. Romney stinks of corruption

 

[Rob D]

So what are we left with? If we run enough "Politicons" together at Fermilab we can spot the ubiquitous "Riggs Corrupson" that will bounce around excitedly until January 20th of '13 when it will degrade into something entirely different but quite ugly?

Will research help us find out where our hope went? Because that's the question now isn't it? We're America, together we can do almost anything. The computer, powered flight, Richard Feynman, Cheeseburgers, Sandra Bullock, useful nuclear fusion, hell, we even had a meshugga politician invent the internet. Where did the America of the '50s go? In this time why do we shrink into cynicism and mistrust when we should be pulling together? Don't give me that "it's those politicians in Washington" stuff. They're just 535 blowhards in a nation of almost 300 million.

These I think are more pressing than the price of gas or even unemployment. I'm 64. I did my job with energy and enthusiasm, not to mention some creativity, for 40 years. Now I stick my head up for a look around and, gaak. Where did my America go?

Rob

 

[skippy1729]

http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/680195957
Not to mention he has millions in offshore accounts most likely to hide from paying taxes.

When (if) you use offshore accounts to hide money and avoid taxes, you don't publically admit to owning such accounts. There are many other reasons to maintain offshore bank accounts.

I doubt if Romney is corrupt but he certainly has the wrong image for the GOP this year; he can be made into a caricature of the mythical 1%.

Skippy

 

[lisab]

When (if) you use offshore accounts to hide money and avoid taxes, you don't publically admit to owning such accounts. There are many other reasons to maintain offshore bank accounts.

I doubt if Romney is corrupt but he certainly has the wrong image for the GOP this year; he can be made into a caricature of the mythical 1%.

Skippy

Yes, I think you're right - and it wouldn't even be difficult to paint him as such, since I'm pretty sure he *is* in the 1% (not sure why you call it 'mythical').

This blows my little mind: one poll shows Gingrich leads Romney, 40 to 26%, in the days leading up to the SC primary.

 

[gravenewworld]

Even better now that newt is ahead. This class of gop candidates are the worst in years. If newt gets picked I can't wait until his ties with Fannie and Freddy get exposed more. It blows my mind how poor people in the south always vote for gop candidates like Romney or newt, they're completely opposite of them and most interests of the American middle class.

 

[skippy1729]

Even better now that newt is ahead. This class of gop candidates are the worst in years. If newt gets picked I can't wait until his ties with Fannie and Freddy get exposed more. It blows my mind how poor people in the south always vote for gop candidates like Romney or newt, they're completely opposite of them and most interests of the American middle class.

Newt got money from F & F, Obama got money from Resko & Solyndra and a $250K no-show job for his wife as a state legislator. Yawn, nobody cares.

Newt is a street fighter and the perfect candidate to go up against the Chicago machine.

Skippy

 

[skippy1729]

Yes, I think you're right - and it wouldn't even be difficult to paint him as such, since I'm pretty sure he *is* in the 1% (not sure why you call it 'mythical').

This blows my little mind: one poll shows Gingrich leads Romney, 40 to 26%, in the days leading up to the SC primary.

Mythical in the sense that many believe they are some kind of magic cash cow. Taking ALL of their income would not keep the US from falling off the fiscal cliff. Mythical in the sense that life would be better off without them. Without venture capitalists and Wall Street the 99% wouldn't have all their electronic toys, telephones would be tied to walls with cords. We are headed for a controlled statist economy. Remember all the technological advances made by the soviets: a space program that filled cemeteries, bread lines and oh yes, the AK-47 the crown jewel of soviet technology!

Skippy

 

[Rob D]

Newt is a street fighter and the perfect candidate to go up against the Chicago machine.

Yes, and I like his brass and strength on his feet, but I'm afraid of him. I fear anyone who seeks power and wears religion on their sleeve. I'm also afraid that when pushed, he's a loose cannon.

I'm drawn to Romney's calm and cool strength. Here's a clip of him handling a heckler. Mentors, if this is too overtly a campaign statement please take it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1kotsFYizs&feature=player_embedded

Thanks,
RD

 

[skippy1729]

I fear anyone who seeks power and wears religion on their sleeve. I'm also afraid that when pushed, he's a loose cannon.

Well, most Republicans "wear religion on their sleeves" to pander to their precious evangelicals. As far as Newts temperament, I think it is necessary to actually get things done as house speaker, I've never heard anyone describe Nancy Pelosi as a shrinking violet. While I would expect a strong foreign policy from Newt, I don't foresee any "boots on the ground" or warming up the ICBMs in the bullpen. Of course, this is a subjective judgement on both of our parts. I would support him but I don't see Romney winning.

Skippy

 

[mheslep]

Some earlier Presidential inaugural address, religion-on-the-sleeve pandering:

"...Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

 

[Evo]

Some earlier Presidential inaugural address, religion-on-the-sleeve pandering:

What does Abraham Lincoln, and religious beliefs at that time have to do with Mitt Romney? Let's not get ridiculous.

 

[mheslep]

What does Abraham Lincoln, and religious beliefs at that time have to do with Mitt Romney? Let's not get ridiculous.

Many of the last several posts concern religion. Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address was essentially a sermon. I posted it for context, and was attempting to create some perspective around the idea of politicians wearing their religion "on their sleeve." The idea that of all Republican candidates do so (as posted above) with regard to any reasonable context does not hold up.

 

[ginru]

I'm drawn to Romney's calm and cool strength. Here's a clip of him handling a heckler. Mentors, if this is too overtly a campaign statement please take it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1kotsFYizs&feature=player_embedded

He seemed conveniently prepared for that situation with a pre-cooked response. He didn't seem as prepared when a reporter confronted him once about his lobbyist friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7c7m37geI

I'm curious to see how he reacts or even evolves from losing SC. He's still got the advantage to win the nomination but he can't even unite his own party. Romney seems to depend heavily on that "Winner" aura rather than real speaking talent (Newt) or a substantive message (Paul). Paul is the only one who'd get my vote out of this party, but if that fails then I'd much rather see Newt finish ahead of Romney. Either way the country's still in trouble, but Newt and Obama in a fiery debate would be at the very least interesting.

On another note, I think Romney is misunderstanding people's dislike of him as a wealthy businessman. Americans love the Steve Jobs type of visionary innovator/entrepreneur, but Romney doesn't fit that captivating image. He feels more like the big bad corporate monster that laid them off before Christmas, hit them with shady termination fees and denied their refund claim for a faulty product. It's funny that Newt with his bold nature and "Big Ideas" is actually closer than Romney to the swashbuckling success that Americans admire.

 

[daveb]

http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/680195957



I hope the gop is dumb enough to elect Romney because he will lose. Romney is another white collar criminal like the ones who tanked the economy in 2008 that know how to finagle the loopholes enough to not get arrested. Not to mention he has millions in offshore accounts most likely to hide from paying taxes. Romney stinks of corruption

HOLY MOLY! I used to work for Damon until a massive layoff in 1996 or so, and I never heard a word about this!

 

[Rob D]

HOLY MOLY! I used to work for Damon until a massive layoff in 1996 or so, and I never heard a word about this!

Hello...Occam here...could it be because it isn't true?

 

[Evo]

Hello...Occam here...could it be because it isn't true?

Do you have anything that shows it's not true?

 

[Rob D]

No, actually that's the reason I voiced it as a question. No matter how supercilious it may have sounded. That's a personal problem of mine, but I'm working on it.

All the best,
Rob

 

[turbo]

I was an employee at a veneer mill when the company was taken over by a competitor in a hostile take-over. It was not pretty. The competitor stripped out all our best equipment, including advanced stuff patented by the long-time owners. That mill-town died when the mill closed. The new "owners" cited "foreign competition" as the main reason that the Bingham mill had to be closed.

Years later, I lost a job in sales and technical service in the paper-mill engineered-fabrics industry when my company was bought out by our nearest competitor in the Northeast. Again, the purchase was predatory. The new owners fired all the sales and technical-service staff, including me. Work for an older company with adequately-funded insurance and retirement funds? You are at risk for take-over from people who want to strip the value out of your company and slash jobs.

This is the type of business that "mittens" was involved in. The article that GNW linked was apparently well-researched, and probably had a lot of truth in it. As an editor for a respected news-outlet, you don't permit "factual" articles (vs opinion) to be printed about a powerful person with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, unless you have vetted the articles. I tend to believe that article (in spirit, if not in all the details) because I have been thrown out of jobs due to a couple of hostile take-overs in the last 40 years.

 

[turbo]

^ People who have been around long enough to see companies destroyed when their pension funds were supposedly "overfunded" and were taken over, and lost their jobs due to predatory tactics used by "venture" capitalists may never be persuaded to pull the lever for Mitt. He is out-of-touch with voters, IMO, and older voters especially. Too many of us have been on the receiving end of his brand of capitalism. He seems like an earnest and pleasant guy, but I think his past will haunt him. That leaves Gingrich as the "inevitable" candidate and he has even more personal (and belt-way) baggage to be seriously considered in the general election.