"Start packing?" So, Gov. Romney, should we even bother with the election?

[Drum God]

So, in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Governor Romney says that the president should "start packing." This is the sort of thing I would expect to hear from a candidate in late October, not mid-April! Talk about counting your votes before they're cast. I know that many Obama supporters talk as though the reelection is a sure thing, but our guy is the incumbent after all. Obama himself isn't rude about it. Since Mrs. Romney doesn't work outside the home, perhaps she'll swing by the White House to measure for drapes.

Mrs. Romney helped with "I believe it's... Mitt's time... It's our turn now." Sounds like a school-yard pick. "I wanna play!! It's my turn!!!" Waaaaaaaa.

Mittens went on with this gem, too: "The president is going to try and do everything possible to divert from the attention being focused upon his record as president and the failure of his economic policies. So he's going to try to make this campaign about the fact that I've been successful, that I've made a lot of money."

Well, given that the economy is turning around, at right about the three-year mark, just as Obama promised, I'd say that the President is likely to focus on his record and the success of his economic policies. He may even point out that Romney's success came at the expense of lots of other people as he gutted companies and laid off workers.

One thing we agree on: "We don't divide America based upon success and wealth and other dimensions of that nature." I agree that success and wealth are two different things. Bill Gates (among many others) are successful and wealthy. Romney, on the other hand, is merely wealthy.

[Robot Arm]

There's nothing new about this. I predict that both nominees will be introduced at their conventions as "the next president of the United States", but that only one of them will be.

The whole pep-rally atmosphere is one of the things I dislike about American politics, but it's been going on too long for me to expect it to ever change. If you must pit Romney for something, do it for the planned cuts that he disclosed in a closed-door meeting with campaign contributors. Whether you agree with the cuts or not, if that's what he plans to do once in office, the electorate has the right (nay, the need) to know about it before we cast our ballots. And the fact that he's keeping quiet about it means he plans to enact policies that he knows most of the country don't want.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Drum God

So, in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Governor Romney says that the president should "start packing." This is the sort of thing I would expect to hear from a candidate in late October, not mid-April! Talk about counting your votes before they're cast. I know that many Obama supporters talk as though the reelection is a sure thing, but our guy is the incumbent after all. Obama himself isn't rude about it. Since Mrs. Romney doesn't work outside the home, perhaps she'll swing by the White House to measure for drapes.

Mrs. Romney helped with "I believe it's... Mitt's time... It's our turn now." Sounds like a school-yard pick. "I wanna play!! It's my turn!!!" Waaaaaaaa.

Mittens went on with this gem, too: "The president is going to try and do everything possible to divert from the attention being focused upon his record as president and the failure of his economic policies. So he's going to try to make this campaign about the fact that I've been successful, that I've made a lot of money."

More likely he's going to campaign about the fact the you're a Republican (which is unacceptable for the presidency).

[Marley23]

I moved this thread to the Pit from Elections before the board went down this evening.

[Rand Rover]

Meh. Obama recently talked about what he would do "after my election," which is arguably worse since he said it to a foreign official.

[elucidator]

I suppose it could be arguable if you could give us a reason to believe it.

[MaxTheVool]

As an Obama-loving Republican-bashing liberal, I rate this... meh. It's tough talk. Whatever.

[Little Nemo]

This is silly. Of course Romney is saying he's going to win. Every political candidate says that.

[Morgyn]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I moved this thread to the Pit from Elections before the board went down this evening.

It was your fault, wasn't it? We knew it wasn't Idle Thoughts's fault! That molly-guard is there for a reason, young man, and it's to keep people like you from poking buttons you shouldn'tna oughta!








You realize, you're never going to live down banning the entire board, right? That from now unto eternity, you'll be to blame for this sort of thing? (It's okay. We still love you. In a purely platonic, non-cooties icky sort of way. )

[kaylasdad99]

Thank you for giving me the term "molly-guard."

[Simplicio]

Yea, add me to the choir of "meh". Putting on a front of overconfidence is just one of those things pols do during elections.

At least Romney might actually win. Somewhere, Newt is probably bragging to someone about how he's sure he'll be the next Prez.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by Drum God

He may even point out that Romney's success came at the expense of lots of other people as he gutted companies and laid off workers.

One thing we agree on: "We don't divide America based upon success and wealth and other dimensions of that nature." I agree that success and wealth are two different things. Bill Gates (among many others) are successful and wealthy. Romney, on the other hand, is merely wealthy.

This is just bullshit mud-slinging and will backfire in the general election if Obama tries to bring it up. Anyone who runs a business will have fired and laid off some people - especially when your business model is to buy up other struggling businesses and try to turn them around.

Romney's success stories (Staples, Sports Authority, etc.) are well-known enough to the general public that he will not have any trouble fending off this sort of attack.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and this thread is as lame as the bullshit people come up with on FreeRepublic about Obama. You're mad at Romney because he is not saying publicly "Yeah, I probably have a 50/50 shot at best"? Give me a break.

[FinnAgain]

And with the election season comes much retardation.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

As an Obama-loving Republican-bashing liberal, I rate this... meh. It's tough talk. Whatever.

Ditto. I'm wondering if the OP ever played a sports game in his life.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Absolute

Romney's success stories (Staples, Sports Authority, etc.) are well-known enough to the general public that he will not have any trouble fending off this sort of attack.

Honestly, this is the first I've heard of that. Granted, I already know I disagree with him on the issues and thus haven't done much research on his background, but that makes me more like the regular uninformed voter. I wonder how many people really do know about Romney's success stories.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Absolute

This is just bullshit mud-slinging and will backfire in the general election if Obama tries to bring it up. Anyone who runs a business will have fired and laid off some people - especially when your business model is to buy up other struggling businesses and try to turn them around.

If Romney tries to promote the idea that his success in private equity will translate to success as president, it's entirely fair for Obama to point out that the two jobs have very different standards for success. The goal of private equity is return on investment. The goal of a president is, well, just about everything else, but keeping the unemployment rate low (i.e. not laying people off) is usually part of it.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Ditto. I'm wondering if the OP ever played a sports game in his life.

I also have it on good authority that the OP's mother wears army boots.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

The goal of a president is, well, just about everything else, but keeping the unemployment rate low (i.e. not laying people off) is usually part of it.

"Laying people off" isn't the goal: it's a means to the end of making the books add up.

I'd love it if Obama laid some people off, and I say that as the spouse of a government employee.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by furt

I'd love it if Obama laid some people off, and I say that as the spouse of a government employee.

I wish he would hire more people, and I say that as a tax payer. We tried your way; it failed.

[monavis]

I wonder how Mr Romney is going to bring some miracle about. If women cannot get birth control, and have more children than they can afford,and since the working poor cannot afford to be stay at home mom's like Mrs Romney, How is that going to bring up the economy. Just look at what happened to the economy in Haiti, and other countries, where the population is greater than the country can support!

Running a business is a whole lot different than running a country where there is so much division and one party doesn't want the other to succeed.It isn't up to the president alone,like the CEO can make the rules for his company.

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I wish he would hire more people, and I say that as a tax payer. We tried your way; it failed.

Remember how the economy grew when GW lowered the taxes on the wealthy?

[Mighty_Girl]

Originally Posted by monavis

I wonder how Mr Romney is going to bring some miracle about. If women cannot get birth control, and have more children than they can afford,and since the working poor cannot afford to be stay at home mom's like Mrs Romney, How is that going to bring up the economy. Just look at what happened to the economy in Haiti, and other countries, where the population is greater than the country can support!

Canada might want to take notice (out of a 10M population in the Dominican Rep. 2 million are Haitian immigrants).

[BobLibDem]

This was the classiest move since Nancy Reagan opined that the Carters should move out early so she could redecorate. At least the Reagans had the decency to actually win the election before wanting to evict their predecessors.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Drum God

I agree that success and wealth are two different things. Bill Gates (among many others) are successful and wealthy. Romney, on the other hand, is merely wealthy.

What are the indicia of success?

[John Mace]

Outrage meter reads 0.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

If Romney tries to promote the idea that his success in private equity will translate to success as president, it's entirely fair for Obama to point out that the two jobs have very different standards for success. The goal of private equity is return on investment. The goal of a president is, well, just about everything else, but keeping the unemployment rate low (i.e. not laying people off) is usually part of it.

You know, this is an interesting point, and what's more... it's absolutely true. One may argue -- and I believe -- that the skill sets for corporate success translate well to the White House, but you're correct when you point out that the actual end goals are not the same. Government is not, and cannot, be about profit; business must be.

[shiftless]

"Start packing" would have been a great line if he had used it at the right time, maybe when he had a small lead in some poll. As it is, the line sounded, to me, flat and out of context. Even when he is trying to talk smack, Romney manages to make it sound like he's reading a script. He may be able, using his business experience, to get the economy straight but he will never inspire me.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Outrage meter reads 0.

I agree that this isn't that outrageous. But you should check that outrage meter of yours, I think the pin is stuck at 0.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Bricker

You know, this is an interesting point, and what's more... it's absolutely true. One may argue -- and I believe -- that the skill sets for corporate success translate well to the White House, but you're correct when you point out that the actual end goals are not the same. Government is not, and cannot, be about profit; business must be.

:clap clap:

Yay! We agree!

I think there is something to be said for constitutional expertise in a president too though.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I agree that this isn't that outrageous. But you should check that outrage meter of yours, I think the pin is stuck at 0.

No. Your post sent it up to 8!

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

:clap clap:

Yay! We agree!

I think there is something to be said for constitutional expertise in a president too though.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I don't go quite so far as to say the President should be a lawyer, but he should have a thorough understanding of the Constitution and relevant caselaw.

Not that Governor Palin was ever held in my high esteem, but she forever torpedoed herself by being unable to answer the simple question, "Apart from Roe v. Wade, what Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

"Apart from Roe v. Wade, what Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"

Palin Answer Generator: "Oh all of them. When we SUPREME COURT DECISIONS in this great country with the troops and the sacrifice of the American patriot of the liberty and the founding fathers of a troops, we can [WINK] of the terrorists and liberty of SUPREME COURT DECISIONS."

[Gyrate]

My outrage burns with the fury of an Easy-Bake Oven.

It's boilerplate electoral smacktalk.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Absolute

You're mad at Romney because he is not saying publicly "Yeah, I probably have a 50/50 shot at best"?

Probably not. This thread was not started in the pit. It got moved here (because there wasn't much to discuss? I don't know why).

[furt]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I wish he would hire more people, and I say that as a tax payer. We tried your way; it failed.

Considering that neither I nor anyone I've voted for has ever held high federal office, I don't think we've ever tried it "my way."

More to the point, considering that the total number of people getting paid by the government, whether employees or contractors, has been rising steadily for years, under both parties, it's pretty safe to say we haven't tried the "increase efficiency, including laying off unnecessary workers" way.

[Katriona]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Palin Answer Generator: "Oh all of them. When we SUPREME COURT DECISIONS in this great country with the troops and the sacrifice of the American patriot of the liberty and the founding fathers of a troops, we can [WINK] of the terrorists and liberty of SUPREME COURT DECISIONS."

She needs to add "Phillip J. Fry" in at awkward moments.

"Oh, all of them, PHILLIP J. FRY..."

[Giraffe]

I'm quite looking forward to this election season. It's always fun when it's the other side trying to muster enthusiasm for whichever second string crap candidate they trotted out to run against the incumbent. Bob Dole, John Kerry, and now Mitt Romney.

[Crap Candidate 20XX]
He's What Our Party Came Up With This Year!

[gamerunknown]

I guess by "all of them" she meant "Marbury vs. Madison".

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by shiftless

He may be able, using his business experience, to get the economy straight

He won't be. "Business experience" doesn't translate into any understanding of macroeconomics. They're entirely different. I'm sure there are people who are skilled at both, but Romney's "business experience" has as much to do with knowing how to fix a national economy as Ron Paul's optometry experience.

And even assuming he understands basic economics properly, and that's a big if in a Republican (and one who, so far, hasn't proposed anything that will actually help propel economic growth), he'll still be shackled by a party that insists, in the face of all evidence, that the only way to fix the economy is to do things that we know will tank it. Remember, it's the same GOP that had members last year saying that defaulting on our debt payments for no good reason was a positive step in fixing the economy.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by furt

Considering that neither I nor anyone I've voted for has ever held high federal office, I don't think we've ever tried it "my way."

More to the point, considering that the total number of people getting paid by the government, whether employees or contractors, has been rising steadily for years, under both parties, it's pretty safe to say we haven't tried the "increase efficiency, including laying off unnecessary workers" way.

Has it been? Including state and municipal employees?

I actually don't know but now I'm interested in the answer, because I don't believe it's true.

[Drum God]

My very first thread started in the "Elections" forum and within minutes, it crashes the board and gets bumped to The Pit. That's a bit of an auspicious beginning...

Originally Posted by shiftless

"Start packing" would have been a great line if he had used it at the right time, maybe when he had a small lead in some poll. As it is, the line sounded, to me, flat and out of context. Even when he is trying to talk smack, Romney manages to make it sound like he's reading a script.

That's what got me starting this thread. He had no reason to say something like "start packing". Maybe something like, "Look out, we're coming for you." "Start packing" just came out of nowhere.

Originally Posted by Bricker

What are the indicia of success?

I would say that doing something that somehow improves the world, even a little bit. Gates, to use my own example, brought a remarkable product to market and has made a boat load of money as a result. His products improve people's lives, productivity, etc. (Yes, Microsoft products have "issues", but they do mostly work.) Romney cannot point to any such innovation. He rescued Staples. It's not like there weren't other big-box office supply retailers. Staples, whether you like them or not, does not bring anything new to the marketplace. He turned a profit at Staples and made a lot of money doing so. That, while highly profitable, is not necessarily an improvement in the world. I will grant him credit for saving the Salt Lake City Olympics. I think the world is a better place because we hold such events.

I would like to see Romney offer some real suggestions on how to improve things. His only suggestions are things that we already know won't work (for the vast majority of Americans).

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Bricker

You know, this is an interesting point, and what's more... it's absolutely true.

Thank you.

One may argue -- and I believe -- that the skill sets for corporate success translate well to the White House, but you're correct when you point out that the actual end goals are not the same. Government is not, and cannot, be about profit; business must be.

I think "corporate success" can be broken down into different categories, as well. I can see a bit of crossover between the skills of a CEO and a president; managing a large organization with diverse components, hiring able subordinates and knowing what to delegate to them (and what not to), planning for long-term and short-term. But there's a whole category of successful investors who do none of that. They aren't in charge of people so much as they are managing money, and look for where it can do them the most good. When they decide it's time to cash out of one company and buy into another, they do it. That's not really an option for a president.

I gather that the private equity/venture capital world that Romney worked in was rather a combination of the two; looking for the best companies to invest in, having some say in their operations, and then cashing out.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Romney's "business experience" has as much to do with knowing how to fix a national economy as Ron Paul's optometry experience.

Not real good with that whole pesky "analogy" thing, are you?

Regards,
Shodan

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Not real good with that whole pesky "analogy" thing, are you?

Regards,
Shodan

Do you know what an analogy is?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Not real good with that whole pesky "analogy" thing, are you?

Regards,
Shodan

Holy lol. Watching you Obama-haters try to mimic actual argument tends to be a mixture of amusing and baffling. For your enlightenment, there wasn't an analogy there.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Do you know what an analogy is?

Sure he does. It's the study of anuses!

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Sure he does. It's the study of anuses!

Oh, I thought it was like when you spit a loogie, only with anal mucus.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Regional variation, I guess.

[furt]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Has it been? Including state and municipal employees?

I actually don't know but now I'm interested in the answer, because I don't believe it's true.

The number of federal government employees has fluctuated up and down, but the growth of government contracting is a long-term upward trend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100501782.html

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...orce-hasnt-gr/


I don't know the job figures on state and local, but spending has steadily gone up at pretty much every level of government for decades, so it seems pretty likely the same trends would hold.

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Not real good with that whole pesky "analogy" thing, are you?

Regards,
Shodan

Not real good with the whole pesky idea of posting anything but contentless snark are you?

Regards,
Buck Godot