Romney's Casino Capitalism

How is that relevant? Not saying that it isn't, just asking how it is. The hub bub about Bain isn't that it failed, so pointing out that he found a way to 'turn around' the Olympics isn't an answer to 'what skills and values' are at play that demo he is the right choice for the Oval Office (it is understood that the values portion is likely to be intractably prone to disagreement, so I am not necessarily asking for a treatise on Romney's values, whatever they might be).
 
I take from Bronco's statement:

1) he is smart and driven

2) he has a track record of success

3) he knows how to deal with egos and divisiveness (I think he is more moderate than most on the right would like, and I wonder how much he can control the right -- I think getting on with the left will not be so hard)

4) he has some unspecified skill at dealing with debt

5) he is not Obama (I think the subtext of Bronco's version of this oft asserted font of support is that, it appears that Obama's main point of attractiveness was the suggestion that he could bring us together, and that is something that he has been unable to do)

I think that 1-3 are true to this extent or that of most people that run for president. I think that Obama does see class and wants to address it in his approach, which raises the ire of some. We talk about class in this country even less successfully than we talk about race.

I think that it remains unclear what Romney did at Bain or in connection with the SLC Olympiad that translates to the current circumstance or the requirements of the Oval office. I am willing to consider that, by not being Obama, he may be more amenable to a certain sector of the populace and their political representatives, and that such might help unclog political pathways regardless of whether he can do anything economically.
 
I think the Olympics is a great example of how his leadership translates to being president.

The SLC Olympics were hundreds of millions of dollars behind in revenues and corruption was everywhere. He cleaned house, and the SLC Olympics went from hundreds of millions in the red to finishing over $40 million in the black.

Do some research on your own and form your own opinion but Romney saved the 2002 Olympics and dealt with everything one could think of for an event of that magnitude.

It dwarfs anything the current President ever did or attempted.

Leadership Check
 
If we lived in Bizzaroland where President Obama had successfully turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics, an Olympics up to the gills in budget problems and corruption that the IOC almost reawarded it to another host city, from a potential national embarrassment to a wildly succesfull event that positively exhibited SLC, Utah, and the United States to the rest of the World and became a benchmark for the management of other Olympic games...

We wouldn't hear the end of it.
 
I think "job-creating skills" is always kind of nebulous - especially when a conservative tries to tout it. You have to be clear about what you mean, and I think I understand what Romney's saying.

Most conservatives don't believe that the government creates jobs with the obvious exception of authorizing public works projects or creating new agencies and literally creating jobs to staff it. They believe the government's role is to create an environment that's condusive to growth in the private sector.

From that standpoint, Romney's qualifications seem to me to stem from his experience in the private sector, his understanding of what it takes to run a business successfully, and what sort of actions the government can take that help or hinder those efforts.

I don't particularly care for his "jobs creation" claim in relation to Bane, because his skills were in turning those companies around, which of course LED TO job creation or preservation. The way he makes the claim seems to feed into the notion that someone can step into public office and write legislation that directly causes private sector job growth.

Right now we have POTUS whose only understanding of the private sector comes from the people with which he surrounds himself, i.e. liberals who know economic theory or businessmen with a vested interest in being on the inside regarless of who is in power. He says himself that when he was working in the private sector it felt like he was "behind enemy lines". He seems to have no interest in feedback from conservative businessmen, and from how he describes them, who can blame him? They're evil! They want to pollute the environment. They want to keep people poor. They don't pay any taxes.
 
Sorry... Batman on the brain!
biggrin.gif
 
Buck- Not only dod you minimize the points I made you completely ignored his success as Governor of Ma.

Romney, as a republican, not only won the lection in a strong democratic state but he was very successful on getting things done. He had to work with a state govt that was controlled by the dems. He did. The biggest single issue we have right now is our spiraling debt due to continued deficits.

Ma had the exact same issue when Romney was elected. Spiraling costs, huge debt burden and year after year deficits. But what happened? He worked with the dem controlled govt and passed revenue increases and cut costs and in 4 years the debt was replaced by a healthy surplus and the state was running in the black.

This cant be argued. On paper he is almost perfect for the current problems our country faces. He has all the requirements most people would want in a leader. I have no idea if he could be successful as a president or not. But he has been up to the task for everything he has ever been involved with.

And dont try to make this a "he isn't BO" thing, but that is not the real point. The only reason I brought BO into the equation was to illustrtate that BO had not had any of the successes and experiences that Romney has had. BO chose a different path, which is absolutely fine. But other than electability, he had no real qualifications for being president. He had no successful runs.

For example, BO was a lawyer. If he had worked his *** off in the firm and developed clients and earned a reputattion in some specialty and worked his way up to being the Managing partner of the firm, then I would absolutely say that would be a huge achievemnt. If he had been a Governor where you have to work with both political parties to be effective and had helped turn some state around, it would be a huge accomplishment. Being a senator or congressman is not accomplishment in and of itself. Getting elected is just the first step. Being effective is the hard part. Authoring bills, chairing committees, garnering support from the other side, compromising to get things done- those are the hard things and he never demonstarted any of that. He was ranked as the most partisan senator in the whole group of them!!

Realistically, there are only 2 choices- BO and Romney. Of the two, I will take Romney all day based on his actual record of accomplishments.
 
I ignored nothing. I noted that your points revolved around working with Dems and acknowledged that he might very well be able to work successfully with Dems better than Obama has been able to work with Reps. That and the comment about the unspecified skill with debt were intended to address Romney's tenure as the Governor of Mass, which has debt that does not really correspond to national debt. I still see no explanation of the skill or plan he will utilize to significantly reign in spending while increasing revenue.

Mind you, Romney is, in my mind, a moderate. I worry about how much he will be beholden to the crazies on the far right. I just don't see that the president, whoever that might be, will be able to effectively reduce the debt without doing some of the things that Obama wants to do in re increasing revenue. Romney isn't going to be able to increase fees and close off loop holes as the president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top