who are we to say it won't be Romney?

[Brittain33]

Romney is the most qualified to be Vice President.

Romney is the most qualified to be President.

He has less experience in elected government than Barack Obama and any of the other Republican candidates.

He tried to translate his business experience to executive government in Massachusetts. It was a big failure. He's used to being in total control, and the Governor of Massachusetts and President of United States do not have that power. He totally failed at working with a legislature of the opposite party, which is a necessary skill of a Republican Administration in 2009 and onward. He's supercilious, arrogant, and dishonest in his promises and his views. (The guy met with gay groups at a gay bar in 2002 to promise them he'd support gay rights in Massachusetts, for goodness sake.) He has no ideological grounding, no firm beliefs except in his own competence and the general idea that wealth is good. All he could do as governor was to pick fights with selected opponents in the Democratic Party and blow his capital on personal squabbles with people like Billy Bulger and Tom Finneran. He comes across as a blow-dried dork in media appearances, so he can't even be McCain's attack dog.

Instead of repeating like Rainman how Romney is the best candidate, why not address some of the specific criticisms of his record and leadership skills?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Winfield, how much does the Romney organization pay you exactly? I ask because right now I'm looking for a steady job.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14993.msg335516#msg335516

Say whatever you want about Winfield...and I've said plenty.......he's consistent.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The big problem with Romney is that he's a slimeball.  The man has no integrity, and flip-flopped on almost every major issue, just so he could run for President.  Disgusting.

That said, he should be strongly considered by McCain anyway.

Let me get this straight, on the one hand, you think Romney is a slimeball, has no integrity, and is a flip flopper.

On the other hand, you believe Romney should be strongly considered for the Vice Presidential nomination by McCain, meaning that Romney could become Vice President of the United States.

In other words, you have no problem with someone you say is a slimeball, has no integrity, and is a flip flopper becoming Vice President of the United States.

One can only conclude from your statement that even though you believe that Romney is all these things you claim him to be, you still believe that he is qualified to be Vice President.

I have a huge problem with him, and I don't think he is qualified to shine my shoes, but the McCain campaign needs to consider him, because he was a Governor, and has lots of money.

[Lincoln Republican]

Romney is the most qualified to be Vice President.

Romney is the most qualified to be President.

He has less experience in elected government than Barack Obama and any of the other Republican candidates.

He tried to translate his business experience to executive government in Massachusetts. It was a big failure. He's used to being in total control, and the Governor of Massachusetts and President of United States do not have that power. He totally failed at working with a legislature of the opposite party, which is a necessary skill of a Republican Administration in 2009 and onward. He's supercilious, arrogant, and dishonest in his promises and his views. (The guy met with gay groups at a gay bar in 2002 to promise them he'd support gay rights in Massachusetts, for goodness sake.) He has no ideological grounding, no firm beliefs except in his own competence and the general idea that wealth is good. All he could do as governor was to pick fights with selected opponents in the Democratic Party and blow his capital on personal squabbles with people like Billy Bulger and Tom Finneran. He comes across as a blow-dried dork in media appearances, so he can't even be McCain's attack dog.

Instead of repeating like Rainman how Romney is the best candidate, why not address some of the specific criticisms of his record and leadership skills?

Strident anti Romneyism runs rampant on this forum, and you are no exception with your spin.

I have laid out in great detail on many occasions on this forum Romney's specific accomplishments and attributes, and have addressed the many criticisms levelled against his record and leadership skills, and I do not choose to repeat them here, yet again. 

With the exception of a very few individuals, most of this forum seems to have a fanatical dislike of Romney, sometimes bordering on hysteria, and does not pay any attention to anything positive about Romney anyway, so I feel I am only wasting my time in addressing these issues yet again. 

[Lincoln Republican]

I have a huge problem with him, and I don't think he is qualified to shine my shoes, but the McCain campaign needs to consider him, because he was a Governor, and has lots of money.

You could not afford to have Romney shine your shoes, my friend.

[Torie]

The problem Winfield, is that the rap on Romney, that he will flip for political convenience without batting an eye, and make up stories ala Hillary, has considerable verisimilitude. He also has a certain robotic quality (he just is too up tight, and didn't really mix it up with the voters like McCain did - did you ever watch his townhall meetings where he droned on with his same tired speech, and then took 3 questions, and called it a rap?), plus a tin ear. Repeating ad nauseum  that immigration policy, and social policy flexibility (to which he once subscribed until he had multiple epiphanies), degraded the "GOP brand," suggests he is marketing soap or something - totally plastic, and a sure "groan" line.

Sure he is competent, and might be a good president. But I consider him too much of a trimmer and prevaricator, and not a "very good liar" ala Clinton, and so at a minimum, ineffectual as a politician at present.

His being on the ticket will in my opinion to a clear and convincing degree (2-1 odds), render McCain unelectable, no matter how much of a money dump he does. This election is not all about money, as Obama himself might come to realize.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I have a huge problem with him, and I don't think he is qualified to shine my shoes, but the McCain campaign needs to consider him, because he was a Governor, and has lots of money.

You could not afford to have Romney shine your shoes, my friend.

Ooh, great comeback

[Lincoln Republican]

I have a huge problem with him, and I don't think he is qualified to shine my shoes, but the McCain campaign needs to consider him, because he was a Governor, and has lots of money.

You could not afford to have Romney shine your shoes, my friend.

Ooh, great comeback

Thanks.  I thought so too. 

[Lincoln Republican]

The problem Winfield, is that the rap on Romney, that he will flip for political convenience without batting an eye, and make up stories ala Hillary, has considerable verisimilitude. He also has a certain robotic quality (he just is too up tight, and didn't really mix it up with the voters like McCain did - did you ever watch his townhall meetings where he droned on with his same tired speech, and then took 3 questions, and called it a rap?), plus a tin ear. Repeating ad nauseum  that immigration policy, and social policy flexibility (to which he once subscribed until he had multiple epiphanies), degraded the "GOP brand," suggests he is marketing soap or something - totally plastic, and a sure "groan" line.

Sure he is competent, and might be a good president. But I consider him too much of a trimmer and prevaricator, and not a "very good liar" ala Clinton, and so at a minimum, ineffectual as a politician at present.

His being on the ticket will in my opinion to a clear and convincing degree (2-1 odds), render McCain unelectable, no matter how much of a money dump he does. This election is not all about money, as Obama himself might come to realize.

Thank  you for acknowledging Romney's competence.  At least you have something positive to say.

Anyway, I have already stated earlier on this thread, on July1, that McCain will not pick Romney.  He will pick Pawlenty.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The problem Winfield, is that the rap on Romney, that he will flip for political convenience without batting an eye, and make up stories ala Hillary, has considerable verisimilitude. He also has a certain robotic quality (he just is too up tight, and didn't really mix it up with the voters like McCain did - did you ever watch his townhall meetings where he droned on with his same tired speech, and then took 3 questions, and called it a rap?), plus a tin ear. Repeating ad nauseum  that immigration policy, and social policy flexibility (to which he once subscribed until he had multiple epiphanies), degraded the "GOP brand," suggests he is marketing soap or something - totally plastic, and a sure "groan" line.

Sure he is competent, and might be a good president. But I consider him too much of a trimmer and prevaricator, and not a "very good liar" ala Clinton, and so at a minimum, ineffectual as a politician at present.

His being on the ticket will in my opinion to a clear and convincing degree (2-1 odds), render McCain unelectable, no matter how much of a money dump he does. This election is not all about money, as Obama himself might come to realize.

Thank  you for acknowledging Romney's competence.  At least you have something positive to say.

Anyway, I have already stated earlier on this thread, on July1, that McCain will not pick Romney.  He will pick Pawlenty.

I actually doubt his competence; I also doubt Pawlenty's.

[Brittain33]

I have laid out in great detail on many occasions on this forum Romney's specific accomplishments and attributes, and have addressed the many criticisms levelled against his record and leadership skills, and I do not choose to repeat them here, yet again. 

You repost your comments about Romney all the time. I provided solid, factual reasons, and you declined to respond to them. Since you've laid out your case, it should be simple for you to cut and paste it here and point out how it addresses his failures as Governor of Massachusetts, his demonstrated lack of a political ideology, and his documented inexperience in elected office.

If you don't want to defend Romney, that's your choice, but that puts your repetition of positive Romney spin in a different light.

[Lincoln Republican]

I have laid out in great detail on many occasions on this forum Romney's specific accomplishments and attributes, and have addressed the many criticisms levelled against his record and leadership skills, and I do not choose to repeat them here, yet again. 

You repost your comments about Romney all the time. I provided solid, factual reasons, and you declined to respond to them. Since you've laid out your case, it should be simple for you to cut and paste it here and point out how it addresses his failures as Governor of Massachusetts, his demonstrated lack of a political ideology, and his documented inexperience in elected office.

If you don't want to defend Romney, that's your choice, but that puts your repetition of positive Romney spin in a different light.

All you have done really is to state some events and then put your own biased spin to them, and then inject some of your own negative opinions about Romney into the mix.

If I have time, I will, yet again, spell out, very clearly, Romney's real record and qualifications. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I have laid out in great detail on many occasions on this forum Romney's specific accomplishments and attributes, and have addressed the many criticisms levelled against his record and leadership skills, and I do not choose to repeat them here, yet again. 

You repost your comments about Romney all the time. I provided solid, factual reasons, and you declined to respond to them. Since you've laid out your case, it should be simple for you to cut and paste it here and point out how it addresses his failures as Governor of Massachusetts, his demonstrated lack of a political ideology, and his documented inexperience in elected office.

If you don't want to defend Romney, that's your choice, but that puts your repetition of positive Romney spin in a different light.

All you have done really is to state some events and then put your own biased spin to them, and then inject some of your own negative opinions about Romney into the mix.

If I have time, I will, yet again, spell out, very clearly, Romney's real record and qualifications. 

That is exactly what you have done, but with the opposite intentions.

Please, enlighten us as to Governor Slimeball's record.

[Brittain33]

If I have time, I will, yet again, spell out, very clearly, Romney's real record and qualifications. 

I live in Massachusetts, so I saw his record firsthand.

If his accomplishments involve taking credit for every job created in Massachusetts between 2003 and 2007, well, I don't think any more of that than I do of Bill Clinton's claim to have created all the jobs invented in the U.S. between 1993 and 2001.l

[Torie]

If I have time, I will, yet again, spell out, very clearly, Romney's real record and qualifications. 

I live in Massachusetts, so I saw his record firsthand.

If his accomplishments involve taking credit for every job created in Massachusetts between 2003 and 2007, well, I don't think any more of that than I do of Bill Clinton's claim to have created all the jobs invented in the U.S. between 1993 and 2001.l

Why don't you enlighten all with you bullet point J'accuse as to Romney's failed governance of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And then one can consider your brief.

[Brittain33]

Here's a good article summing up how little he got done in his first few months and alluding to how he wasted his capital picking a fight with Billy Bulger, a former State Senate President who decamped to a sinecure at U. Mass. where Romney tracked him down. This led to tremendous and unnecessary bad blood with the legislature, with consequences below.

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/02814304.htm

He proposed to dismantle the MDC, a patronage conglomerate that operates roads, pools, skating rinks, and other such projects. Under Romney's lead, it got renamed the DCR but still exists in the same basic form.

He proposed unifying the Turnpike Authority with other highway authorities to eliminate waste and overlap. Failed.

He soured relations with the legislature, where the respective leaders enjoy tremendous power and must be courted. (Deval Patrick found this out, too.) Romney is used to being the head honcho in his own business and had no patience for dealing with pols he didn't respect and couldn't build relationships with. He acted imperiously and pursued symbolic battles that alienated people without achieving results. Example: he tried to keep the Central Artery from being renamed the Tip O'Neill tunnel by saying it should be called the Liberty Tunnel, and when politicians who knew Tip demurred, he accused them of disrespecting veterans who would be honored by the name he proposed. That's not good politics, it sounds like a pathetic attempt at button-pushing that backfired and cost him even more capital.

Because he wouldn't play their game, he was completely shut out of budget negotiations and his vetoes were largely overridden. The governor has the power to negotiate with them and get his initiatives incorporated, but instead he spent his capital on Billy Bulger, Tip's tunnel,
and the gay marriage amendment.
As for dishonesty and lack of a core ideology, that has been discussed so much that I don't know where to begin. I'm sure you're familiar with that brief. I will repeat what I said above, he ran in 2002 on a platform supporting civil unions and equal rights for gays, having met with gay activists during the campaign, only to pivot once in office. Then he whipped the Republican caucus in the legislature to fight a rearguard action on gay marriage, trying to pass an amendment that would ban civil unions as well. This forced the Republican caucus to define itself on a culture war issue and to make themselves targets of the politically active and open-walleted gay community of Boston, whereas before they were ignored.

When Romney went to the voters in 2004 with his hand-picked slate of Republican candidates, he decided to have them campaign on mailings trumpeting bogus scandals by the incumbents about amnesty for sex offenders that voters didn't believe and which made the Republican candidates look desperate. The Republican caucus, already weak, was decimated further. Certainly the national environment didn't help, but Romney was the main message man in the state and he choose ineffective and unbelievable messages. He also walked away from his proteges mid-campaign when it looked like they weren't getting traction, leaving them high and dry. I believe fieldmarshaldj on Free Republic speaks at length about how he took advantage of the state party for his own ambitions and left it exhausted and depleted with no future or farm team. It's true, and we're all the worse off for it. We need a viable opposition, not a candidate looking to pick battles for the audience in South Carolina or Salt Lake.

He was completely absent from the state for the entire second half of his term, running for President.

I defy anyone to explain what effect he had on the Massachusetts economy.

All of these speak to a poor transition from the corporate world, where Romney excelled, to the political world, where he failed to succeed in a difficult position and then walked away from his responsibilities. It's the same story as Craig Benson, north of the border, and with the same outcome when he left office. He's not cut out for politics, no matter how good he looks or how well he speaks.

[Torie]

Thanks B33. It appears Romney lacked a good bedside manner, and wasted capital on irrelevancies. He is most famous for his health insurance plan. What do you think of that? And didn't he cut back on spending, or at least the growth of it?

[Brittain33]

Thanks B33. It appears Romney lacked a good bedside manner, and wasted capital on irrelevancies. He is most famous for his health insurance plan. What do you think of that? And didn't he cut back on spending, or at least the growth of it?

To the best of my knowledge, the health care plan originated in the legislature and was largely shaped there, and his contribution was to push to reduce assessments on corporations that didn't offer insurance to keep it business-friendly. There were objections to that on the basis that keeping penalties low introduced moral hazard because companies had more of an incentive to just pay the fine and not cover their workers. His point of view was that the fewer taxes on business, the better. I think people could have a constructive debate on whether this is a defensible point of view or simply defending businesses in a zero-sum game and deferring necessary policy changes that are part of making a mandate work. I know that sounds like a loaded way to frame it, but I recognize health care policy is complex and possibly there are defenses to his approach.

He could have tried to shut down the whole thing, though, and didn't.

His impact on spending was to essentially force the cutting of state aid to towns and cities, which led to a compensatory rise in property taxes. He fought to try to roll back the income tax to 5% from 5.3%, which is a battle he didn't win, but one could argue that a Democratic governor would have pushed it back up to its Dukakis-era 5.95% or the intermediate step of 5.6%, so there's something of significance. State aid to cities and towns is huge in Massachusetts and his temporary influence was to shift the burden from a progressive tax (income) to property taxes. Mine went up by a third in two years from a low base. As an upper middle class person free riding in a poor city which has seen tremendous property appreciation, I think it would have been fairer to make me pay more in income tax rather than use the blunderbuss of property taxes. Again, though, people could debate this. 

The speaker of the House until 2004, Tom Finneran, was a very strong fiscal conservative and an ally of Romney's on this. He gets equal credit for what I consider a bad and regressive policy. The Senate had more profligate inclinations.

One way Romney cut money was to delay infrastructure improvements and mass transit developments. This does not look like a good trade-off, now that the MBTA is overwhelmed by passengers and Patrick is pushing them through several years later.

[Torie]

Thanks again B33. I appreciate it. Are property taxes paid in true fair market values, or are game played there. This old boy is of course a massive beneficiary of the Prop 13 law in California, which is totally indefensible, but there you go. If a proposition were introduced to repeal Prop 13, I might have to get drunk first to do the right think with my vote.

Winfield, if you want to rebut B33, and point out his "lib-spin" have at him. I of course, don't have the knowledge to know one way or the other, although B33's characterizations strike me as an attempt to be fair and balanced, but that may just be his skill at veneering - or maybe not. Maybe Romney just acted as a modest brake on an uber liberal legislature.

[Brittain33]

Thanks again B33. I appreciate it. Are property taxes paid in true fair market values, or are game played there. This old boy is of course a massive beneficiary of the Prop 13 law in California, which is totally indefensible, but there you go. If a proposition were introduced to repeal Prop 13, I might have to get drunk first to do the right think with my vote.

Property assessments are on market value, as close as they can get. I pay about .75% on fair market value, down from about .9% in 2000 even while property values have increased dramatically and only come down part way since '05. It comes from living in a city with many working class people who bought in the 1980s or earlier, who really couldn't afford to buy here now and who are a strong constituency (moral and electoral) for property tax relief, and one where the combination of old people, renters, and gentrifyers like me mean that the schools are both undesirable and empty enough to keep costs low. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have my biases, which I can only attempt to correct for. I've been wasting time on Internet fights long enough to know that there's no real prize for winning unfairly, and would rather people would see me as someone receptive to fair arguments so they would be willing to waste their time talking to me.

[Lincoln Republican]

Some actual facts outlining some of Mitt Romney's outstanding accomplishments in the academic, private, public, and political fields, leaving no doubt whatsoever that Romney is an extremely intelligent, capable, and gifted leader and executive.

(Taken from Wikipedia)

Romney graduated from the Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1965 and earned a perfect score on his SAT, after which he attended Stanford University for two quarters.

Subsequently, Romney attended Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian, earning his Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude in 1971.

(summa cum laude being a term used in diplomas to grant the highest of three special honors for grades above the average)

In 1975, Romney graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.

After graduation, Romney remained in Massachusetts and went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.  From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another management consulting firm based in Boston. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.  During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent, making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.  He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority.

In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.

Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis.  The Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik.  Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.

On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.  Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget.  Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.

Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity.  He wrote a book about his experience titled Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.

Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003.  Upon entering office, Romney faced a projected $3 billion deficit, but a previously enacted $1.3 billion capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion.  Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $700 million surplus and was able to cut taxes.

[Brittain33]

As I said, excellent businessman, crap in elected office. Everything up until the last paragraph predates his service as governor, which was the focus of my posts. He'd probably do very well as a Cabinet secretary, actually.

The change in the business cycle from recession in 2001 to good times in 2004-2005 led to the turnover from deficits to surplus just about everywhere that wasn't Michigan or Louisiana. I did give an accounting of his fiscal record in an earlier post.

[Lincoln Republican]

Your accounting of Romney's Governorship conveniently fails to mention the horrendous fiscal situation that Romney inherited, and his amazing deficit slaying prowess and expertise, and the outstanding job he did in slaying the deficit dragon.

[Brittain33]

his amazing deficit slaying prowess

Ok, I'm sorry that I didn't get that this was a game for you, and not sincere. I've talked about his fiscal policy twice already, but no one strings words together like that in earnest.

[Lincoln Republican]

his amazing deficit slaying prowess

Ok, I'm sorry that I didn't get that this was a game for you, and not sincere. I've talked about his fiscal policy twice already, but no one strings words together like that in earnest.

I do, and I am serious.

Do you deny that Romney left the state with a $700 million surplus upon leaving office?   

If so, you had best advise Wikipedia immediately so they can correct this entry.

I am not talking about how he accomplished this deficit feat, but the mere fact that he did accomplish it.

I do not take issue with your statements about Romney's methods of eliminating the deficit or the impact that his deficit elimination plan had on the state, other than to say that tough times sometimes call for tough measures, in order to pay dividends in the long run.

I do appreciate the fact that you acknowledge Romney would do very well as a cabinet secretary.  I have been touting Romney for some time as Secretary of the Treasury should McCain win. 

I do not believe that Romney will get the VP nod from McCain.