Why isn’t he the right man?

Question for you: With economic fears on the rise, wouldn’t it make sense for Romney to play up his money abilities? He turned the Olympics around, and he seems to have a knack for seeing economic systems and turning them to gold. People claim that his economic savvy was what won in Michigan, and I don’t see why it won’t win elsewhere, with everyone worrying about money.

UPDATETime Magazine has also figured out that the economy might be Romney’s ace in the hole.


18 Responses

  1. I agree with this….and he could credibly take on the
    “earmark” crowd in Congress, winning BIG points with
    the real people who are so tired of the cronyism,
    corruption and “legal theft” being practiced on both
    sides of the aisles up there.

    Furthermore, his management experience is another
    VERY strong argument in his favor. He should be
    talking about how he could take on the entrenched
    bureaucracy and assure that the “permanent government”
    is more responsive to the will of the people who vote
    for the leadership of the U.S.

    Of course, maybe not even a determined and energetic
    President can actually root out the D.C. crowd who run
    the agencies and whose decision-making is aimed at
    making their jobs permanent, rather than whatever their
    actual employers are interested in. That’s a scary
    thought, but I’m increasingly afraid that it’s the reality.

  2. If it comes down to a one issue election, he is perhaps the strongest Republican in the field. He will get beat up on foreign relations issues, however. Fortunately, none of the Democrats can brag on that score, either.

  3. I like Mitt, too. He has proven his effectiveness as an executive in Massachusetts with a Democrat-controlled legislature, and I think it very unlikely there are any skeletons in his closet for the Clinton machine to dig out.

  4. Enlighten me. My memory may be faulty, but, of the Salt Lake City Olympics, I remember much talk about the corruption and bribes paid IOC officials to get the games and how the Salt Lake games became the poster child of how things would NOT be in the future.

    Now did Mitt, who I do not trust, nor support in any way, “clean” that up, or was he riding the wave of a clean-up effort that was well underway before he took the job. Wasn’t he hired because of the problems?

    I just don’t have a memory of him “saving” the games or turning them around. Once the IOC’s practices were exposed it was other member nations… particularly those who had failed to attract the games… who led the reform. Romney was hired as a public face of a tainted games… to deflect the existing bad publicity… As a semi-local guy with a name he was a good choice, but is that really something to brag about?

    I guess it’s worth putting on a resume, but it doesn’t translate to me as a positive characteristic for a Commander in Chief. His time as Governor is much more meaningful.

    Due to the national parties’ sanctions on Florida for moving the primary date, we have had almost no campaign ads on the air here. No Democrats are even appearing in the state for anything other than private fund-raisers. On the Republican side Romney has been the ONLY one running ads and they’ve been running for a few months… Maybe it’s those smarmy ads that give me such negatives for him as I don’t really know much about him. But my feelings toward him and his campaign are entirely negative.

    As a registered Dem, I can’t vote for him until November if he is nominated, and I can’t see myself voting for any of the Dems running, so maybe my thoughts don’t matter… but I don’t think I’m alone in having such negative impressions of Mr. Willard Romney. I just can’t see him bing nominated.

  5. It is fair to say the games were rescued by Romney. I’m not a big fan of him either, but credit where credit is due: he did a hell of a job on what was shaping up to be – and in fact is generally – a civic disaster. At this point, I completely fail to understand why anyone would want the Olympics – they generally cost a fortune, lose five fortunes, and saddle municipalities with debt that takes a generation to dig out from under. I admit freely: I don’t get the whole thing.

    However, that said, it seems that Salt Lake is among the few that actually made money. There is little doubt that this was due to splendid management.

    The bribes and thievery were indeed cleaned up by Romney, who was brought in because A) he had the executive ability, and B) boy, did they need someone whose image was clean by the time they got him there! It didn’t hurt that he also saw it as public service, and basically didn’t make them pay him much. (Possibly any CEO could have done it, but a guy like Jack Welch, for example, would have expected to get paid millions for his efforts. Not to mention you wouldn’t have been able to avoid him on TV.)

    Romney was not all over the tube. He came in, did the job in a fairly low-key manner, put the train back on the rails, put the managers and accountants in place – and got out of the way. It should also probably be noted that Salt Lake knew exactly where they stood financially a whole lot quicker after the games than most places do: the accounting, like everything else, was done – no BS.

    It was a rescue that has made the textbooks for good reason.

  6. Hello Bookworm,

    I am going to have to retract some of my vehemence against Mitt Romney. My reservations about him and where he stands on his religion is still there, but given our list of potential candidates, he’s looking better and better.

    The on the Democratic end, Hillary and Obama are becoming more and more overtly totalitarian. It took someone else to connect the dots for me, but Obama’s self-help feel-good speeches has very strange echoes of fascism.

    Now, I’m using the term fascism in a descriptive, NOT emotive way. According to Wikipedia, this is the definition of Fascism:

    Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes.

    One of Obama’s primary slogans is “The Audacity of Hope”. One of the Nazi’s primary slogans is “Strength through joy.” Both of these statements are rhetorically neutral, meaning they don’t say anything at all. However, for some reason, people get snatched up in them. How many times now have we heard Obama talk about “unity” and the generational divide and the youth movement?

    Let me also be clear that I don’t think Obama is evil or Hitler-esque. I’m just pointing out the origins of that kind of rhetoric (intended or not intended), and for the record, I don’t think Obama’s an evil man. But it does make me nervous to hear our politicians, not just Obama, talk this way.

    Then on the Republican side, we have Mike Hucka-Huckabee who wants to throw gays into camps for reasons of sanitation (A student of the Holocaust ought to know that the Nazi rounded up the Jews into ghettos for reasons of sanitation. They believed that Jews were the carriers of syphilis and other diseases and they needed to be separated from the general populace for those said reasons.) His policies include all the leftist stances: signing Kyoto, getting UN sanction to defend ourselves, making nice with all our enemies, etc etc. I don’t trust him any further than I can sling a piano.

    Then we have McCain who rightfully holds the mantel of maverick in his party. He’s obfuscated the issue of illegal immigration; he appeared to have gone against his entire party not out of principle of those many occasions but out of a temper tantrum of not getting what he wanted. I think he’d be a wonderful Secretary of Defense, but I don’t want that hot temper near the White House. And also, I think he’s getting too old for the job. Just look at the physical toll this campaign is taking on him.

    I agree with many voters in South Carolina about Thompson. While he’s coming out strong in SC right now, it certainly does have feeling of “too little, too late”.

    Then there’s Guiliani. I am very ambivalent. He’s open borders all the way. In fact, his law firm is the one brokering the deal to build that Super HIghway to Denver from Mexico to make Denver an inland port. Mexican trucks and goods would travel from Mexico City to Denver unimpeded by customs or passport regulations or anything, just a straight shot and indeed without borders.

    On the other hand, I have not one doubt that he’ll kick the butt of our enemies and take their names. He’s the fella that set up and negotiated all our procedures and protocols on how to deal with terrorists from the Reagan days, ie he knows this ugly business of terrorists inside and out.

    As for Romney, I agree with his every policy right down the line and I really like the fact that he speaks flat out and make the kind points that I’ve only heard me and my friends make. (Smart man, I’d say : )

    My reservation on him is obviously his Mormonism who’s core belief is that they are little gods in evolution. Most Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of this world. Key word “This World”. As I understand it, in their cosmology the god in this world was just like us at one point, and he evolved into this powerful being. I understand that it is instrumental to their system of belief that we are made to be gods over time.

    Then there is my further reservation about the Mormon church concerning their mandatory tithing (they have their own IRS auditors that takes a chunk of your gross income.), how in the areas they’re dominant such as Utah, the church owns everything and demands conformity (their form of sharia law); how the Mormon church is arranged into concentric circles where the outer circle doesn’t know what happens in the inner circle (like those secret societies I don’t like), and as far as I’m concerned, the Mormons make the vehement Catholics look like a bunch of pikers.

    But with all this said, I know that 90 percent of the Mormons out there are decent chaps just trying to make it through the world like the rest of us. Thinking about it also makes me wonder, what is the difference between Mormons believing that they are all potential little gods and my belief that every human is the Son or Daughter of the Living God?

    I’m trying to be more open-minded toward Mitt Romney, namely because the abysmal choices we have for President. If there was a more obvious strong choice in another candidate, I don’t know if I’d be more open-minded on this topic. But if New Age, occult, Eleanor Roosevelt channeling Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Mitt would look very, very good in comparison.

  7. Oh, and to answer your question, I think Mitt’s economic savvy will play in states other than Michigan. For people to downplay this win because Romney was a “son of Michigan” is to miss the point entirely. He hasn’t really lived in Michigan for 20 odd years, which in my book, doesn’t make him a Michigander. Hardly a native son.

    If he talks straight from the heart rather than intoning from a script he memorized, I think his economic savvy could be an asset in other states, especially for the reason you stated, that people are worried about the economy and their personal finances.

  8. Well said, Thomas. What you wrote put me in mind of Matthew 7:16 (“By their fruits you will know them.”) I’ve always understood this to mean that people’s true characters appear from their acts. Romney’s acts, his whole life, have been pretty good ones — not perfect (whose are?) but pretty good. That his theology is peculiar is something that I think he’ll have to take up with God in the next life. In the political sphere, his theology ought to take second place to a 30 year record of competence, integrity of an usually high rate in the political and business world, and decency.

    I’m always reminded of the end of C.S. Lewis’ last Narnia book, “The Last Battle.” In it, a Calormen soldier — an enemy — nevertheless ends up in the Narnian afterlife. When he asks how he can have been saved, since he always worshipped the Calormen God Tash, Aslan replies that, to the extent the soldier was good and moral, Aslan understood those acts to be rendered to him. I’ve always liked that little bit of Narnian theology from one of the great Christian apologists.

  9. Howdy Bookworm,

    My Bible says that if Christ is not reveal to someone, I am to demonstration Christ’s love and let them live according to the light of their own conscience. I don’t know enough about Romney to know if his fruits are good or bad or in between, but I quite agree with you that Romney’s theology should be left up between him and his Creator.

    Romney, unlike Huckabee , has not made his faith central to his campaign for the Presidency. Huckabee keeps on flashing his evangelical credentials like a government issued badge, and in that case, his stances there are fair game. Romney tried to play his Mormon belief down, not up.

    Here’s the bottom line for me for a candidate for President. Will he have the wherewithal to preserve our Republic when the natural disasters and the terrorists hit us again? The temptation in any democracy is to aggregate more power to a central location.

    Bush has resolutely refused to do it when 9/11 hit even as our Legislative Branch hollered for it (hardly the fascism everyone on the Left accused him of). One of the by products of their hollering is that bloated monstrosity called Homeland Security. Bush and the Joint Chiefs begged Congress not to hoist this on the country.

    If we get hit again, I would want someone steady in office who is steady and whose load stone is the preservation of our Republic. I want someone who isn’t going to do the expedient thing and appease the mob-ocracy in many quarters of our nation.

    I have a feeling we’re passing through perilous times and we’re probably going to hit some kind of crisis in the near term, terrorists strike or not; and when that crisis hits, I want a President who would rally the people and preserve our Republic rather than dissolve into a American style dictatorship, benign though it might appear at first.

    History buffs must remember that when Rome dissolved from a Republic to an empire Rome kept all the outward forms of a Republic, including elections and a Senate.

    With all this said, no matter who is in office, I think we’re reaching a state of fundamental choice as a nation, of who we ultimately are. This election is only but one expression of this choice. It’s an important choice, but it’s only one of thousands.

    In a way, I think the manner in which we’ll conduct this election is strangely more important than who is ultimately elected. Will we, the people, listen to accusation? Will we stampede into fascism and dissolve our Republic? Will we allow envy and victimology and entitlement determine how we conduct ourselves? … and thousands of more questions.

    I believe Britain underwent a similar choice after Maggie Thatcher. The British went with their politics of envy and they elected Tony Blair, who when the smoke cleared was more the executioner of Britain than the savior he proclaimed himself to be. Through Blair and his policies, Britain vanished into the belly of the EU. We have a very similar choice as a people, to remain ourselves or be swallowed up in the Global Government behemoth we see rising.

    In electing our President, it will matter very much who sits in the Oval Office when we finally confront the reality of a global world government. But like you referenced in your statement above, Mrs. Bookworm, “by their fruits you will know them.” The surface results we’ll see from this election will be but the overflow of the heart of the American people, and even with that we won’t see the result for some time until after the dust has settled.

    For instance, we’re in the longest war since the Revolutionary War and we’ve re-elected the President and backed the surge as a people. Who knew this was possible from where we stood in the election of 2006? Who knew we were as steadfast as that?

  10. Thomas,

    Michigan is not a Mormon state and apparently Mitt’s father was OK with the voters there. And it doesn’t look like Mitt’s religion affected his ability to work with business leaders. I’d say you are safe in basing your decision on what you see.

  11. expat,

    Well, … huh? I don’t suppose you read what I wrote…

  12. I could live with Mitt — I think he’s a good, competent, and moral man with fortitude and strength. I worry about his tendency to “manage” things — perhaps that wouldn’t be taken too far, but it would be a real disaster if he forgets “the vision thing” and gets involved in the masses of detail available to him as Commander in Chief.

    I still remember the campaigns that Reagan ran — he was excoriated for being a lightweight, who didn’t have a grasp of all the details. But Reagan had what every great President needs – core principles and the will and determination to stick to them in deciding the great questions, regardless of the details. The differences between him and James Earl Carter, who obsessed over everything and made a real success of nothing, mark Reagan as on or our great Presidents, while Jimmy will be remembered to history mostly for his shameful post-Presidential activities.

    The little I can learn of Fred Thompson makes me think that he could be the hedgehog in this race….the man who would doggedly lead our nation where it needs to go, regardless of the sniping and abuse from the left and everyone else who hates America.

    I just don’t know….but there’s time, and there’s prayer. And I’m using my time to both study and pray because this is going to be a VERY important election.

    P.S. Bookworm, The Last Battle is my favorite of the series — and the scene you remember is why. God calls ALL of us — the still small voice that reminds us of what is right and urges us to do it. He will welcome all who listen and respond….. And never forget the corallary…..regardless of whose name you claim, if you do evil, you are serving Tasch.

  13. Expat,

    Boy howdy, blogs are a funny thing sometimes. I read your remark inverse to its meaning. I get what you’re saying. Michigan, indeed, isn’t a Mormon state and Mitt’s father worked well there. Neither is Massachusetts and Mitt worked well there as well.

    Going from governor of a state to President of the United States is a big leap and the powers he would wield would be exponentially greater…

    … I just don’t know. I’m beginning to lean in Mitt’s direction a bit, but this election is just silly season. I know I’m not alone in feeling as though he’s being drawn and quartered by many of the candidates. Right now, I view Romney favorably, but like everything else in this crazy election, that can change.

    I know hard line Democrats considering Republicans, and hardcore Republicans considering Democrats. It’s all just so darn fluid.

  14. So far, Mitt Romney is the only candidate who says the word “Islamofascism” as if he means it.

    He hasn’t convinced me that he can stand up to the withering assault of new-socialist liberalism that the Democrats throw at our nation. In other words, I’m still unsure how deep his conservative philosophy is. When the going gets tough – and it will get intensely difficult – how will he react?

    All I can say is, I’m glad this primary cycle appears that it will go beyond February 5th until a candidate on the Republican side is selected. We all need to keep kicking the tires, taking these vehicles out for test drives.

  15. Thomas,

    I probably wasn’t too clear. I did mean that it didn’t seem that his religion had interfered in the way he did his job. I’m with you on the fluidity of the race. We have to figure out the candidates values, personal character, priorities, and winabilty. It aint easy. I think Mike’s last sentence summed it up pretty well. I just hope the primary battle doesn’t chew up the candidates too much before November. We all have to keep the Dem alternatives in mind.

  16. expat,

    One possible scenario I think the Republicans should steel themselves for is a scenario where no one candidate is the clear winner after Super Tuesday. Dick Morris said in a recent interview after Mitt Romney’s Michigan win is, “Chaos has descended on the Republican Party.”

    What if there is no clear winner all the way up to the Republican Convention? What if, McCain wins a few here, Romney a few there, and Huckabee a few elsewhere? It would be a REAL convention, something I was told that hadn’t happened in America for over a hundred years, even before Teddy Roosevelt.

    If that happens, the Republican Party is gonna be in deep trouble. You put your finger right on it, I think. If the Republicans actually face an eventuality of an open convention, I have doubts that they’ll do well in the general election.

    Look at the primary elections so far. Republicans and Democrats are fighting tooth and nail for the nomination so vociferously that you could almost mistake the energy coming out of them as the general election rather than the primaries, and they’re starting to knock each other pretty hard.

    I personally think the coalition that Reagan created is gone, fragmented. I think a new one ought to be forged. I also think it is a mistake for Republicans to constantly reference Reagan and look back longingly to his years as President. I think the Republicans should try to move on with laud the ideals that they do, in fact, have.

    Personally, I think the mood of the American people is changing and they want something done to protect their way of life and their culture from disintegration. That’s what Huckabee tapped into in Iowa. I think a new coalition is doable, but we really do need the candidates to articulate their positions better.

    When Mitt Romney lost New Hampshire and when he won Michigan, his speeches after the election were like he was on fire. He spoke from the heart and expounded his ideas. I think if he began that way from the start of this primary season, it would be pretty much wrapped up in his favor by now.

    I think this is the kind of thing we need. Ideals coupled to concrete actions. Obama has a bunch of empty platitudes without any concretes. I think both Mitt and Rudy are in a position to propound concrete actions while appealing to American ideals.

  17. I think the lesson BW is reaching for in The Last Battle is God will always recognize His own, it matters not by what name you know Him.

    It is also my favorite Narnia book but I doubt we’ll see it made into a movie – too politically incorrect!

    Romney still comes across to me as more a Stepford candidate than a statesman. If Rudy is sunk in Fla, I’m leaning toward Fred as my next choice on 2/5.

    Go Pack!

  18. expat,

    Oh, by the way, I think you were very clear in your earlier comments. I, however, was clearly not as attentive to your comments as you were mine. My sincere apologies, sir.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: