who are we to say it won't be Romney? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 06:59:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  who are we to say it won't be Romney? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: who are we to say it won't be Romney?  (Read 3806 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« on: July 02, 2008, 08:17:00 AM »
« edited: July 02, 2008, 08:19:24 AM by 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?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2008, 07:09:21 AM »

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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2008, 11:28:31 PM »

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
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2008, 08:15:38 AM »
« Edited: July 04, 2008, 08:28:01 AM by 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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2008, 01:15:41 PM »

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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2008, 08:05:35 PM »
« Edited: July 05, 2008, 08:10:29 PM by 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. Smiley

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. 

Quote
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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2008, 02:59:25 PM »
« Edited: July 06, 2008, 03:02:56 PM by 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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,973


« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2008, 03:29:25 PM »


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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 13 queries.