Please, the guy has been running for public office for the last decade for Pete’ sake.’ Claiming he’s not a career politician as he runs for the countries top political office is ridiculous.
He might not have been a career politician his whole life but he certainly is now.
A careet politician is one thing and a career candidate is another.
What false dichotomy? Here’s the quote again:
He (assuming that what appears on mittromney.com has his blessing) is downplaying his time in government and touting his experience in private enterprise as a relevant qualification in his campaign for the presidency. The article linked in the OP, and the ensuing debate, are directly in response to that claim.
To me a career candidate just means they aren’t a very good politician but they are still a career politician.
That just because he claims he isn’t a career politician that that somehow means he doesn’t talk about his time as governor. Go back to the Bio page. More words are devoted to his time as governor than are devoted to his time in business. That’s a funny way to hide from something.
I and every conservative I know were unhappy with Bush and his expansion of federal spending.
Is this what it’s about? Since some Republicans went along with Bush’s spending, that makes us “knuckle draggers” and an unworthy opponent?
Why have a relatively undistinguished businessman like Romney if so?
Lets recruit a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, both of whom are far more successful and better equipped to handle complexity and financials.
Knock yourself out.
William McKinley – lifetime politician after the military
Theodore Roosevelt – adventurer and politician
William Howard Taft – Lawyer, judge, politics
Woodrow Wilson – Lawyer, academic, then politics
Warren G. Harding – Newspaper publisher/owner, politician
John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. – Lawyer then politics
Herbert Clark Hoover – mining engineer, humanitarian, business man, politician
Franklin Delano Roosevelt – lifetime politician
Harry S. Truman – military, failed businessman, politician
Dwight D. Eisenhower – Lifetime military before the presidency
John F. Kennedy – Lifetime politician after the military
Lyndon B. Johnson - Businessman/ politician then full time politician with a brief military stint
Richard M Nixon – Lawyer and then lifetime politician with a brief military stint
Gerald Rudolph “Jerry” Ford, Jr – Lifetime politician after the military
James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr. – Military, businessman/farmer, politician
Ronald Wilson Reagan – Actor then politician
George H W Bush – Brief military, business, then politician
William Jefferson Clinton – Lawyer, lifetime politician
George W Bush – businessman/politician then full time politician
Barack Hussein Obama – Community organizer, lifetime politician
There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of correlation between successful presidencies and business experience.
Harding, Hoover, Truman, Johnson, Carter and the two Bushes all had some business background with mixed successes in business and politics.
In some cases the political connections helped businesses. The three Texas guys - Johnson and the two Bushes.
The worst president of the lot probably was probably Harding, the newspaper publisher who sold his successful paper for $500,000.
The best president may have been Truman who famously failed at haberdashery.
Hoover failed in business mainly due to the faults of others and “failed” in the presidency mainly due to terrible circumstances. A very honorable man who has been treated too harshly in history, IMO.
Carter’s reasonably successful business was hurt a bit by segregationist boycotts after he became a moderate governor of Georgia. He was probably a better businessman than president.
Fair enough.
They even teach us in business school that running a business is different from being a politician.
The main difference, aside from scale, is that an economy is a closed system. That is to say, you are stuck with the popultion and resources you have. Unlike a business, you can’t just fire half the population if they fail to perform. You can’t acquire neighboring countries (not without going to war).
Any politician of whatever stripe who promises to “change the way business is done in Washington” is doomed to fail on that promise within an hour of taking office. The best one can hope for is to jam through an agenda that doesn’t actually ruin the country.
Who are you talking about-- Romney or Obama?
Take your pick. Or choose any who have come before (other than perhaps FDR), or any who may come after.
You want knuckle-dragging, I’ll show you knuckle-dragging. No tax increases at all, period. No compromise, period. Government spending is only bad, period. And still in full view of the financial market’s meltdown of 2008, the free market is only good, period.
In my lifetime, neither party has ever been so blindly hard line in its views before.
People with more than knuckle-dragging sensibility, whether they’re conservative or liberal, know that reality lies somewhere in the middle rather than at either extreme. Yet the GOP welcomed the Tea Party extremists and served them with an unbending rigidity that unfairly took advantage of the democratic process. If you still don’t understand liberal outrage at this, consider the mirror situation: the Democratic party taking an extreme communist group under its wing in order to get elected and holding the country hostage to achieve its ends. You think that wouldn’t bring a righteous hue and cry from conservatives?
Sounds like you have a problem with Democracy. Voters elected those Tea Party canddidates, who’ve done pretty much what they said they’d do. If the voters are displeased, they are free to elect different candidates in the next election. Dems are free to run extreme candidates of their own, and would if they thought they could win.
Sounds like you dodged the question.
Sounds like you have a problem with Democracy. Voters elected Barack Obama to the presidency, and he’s done pretty much what they said he’d do. If the voters are displeased, they are free to elect a different president in November. The right-wing nuts are free to run an extreme candidate of their own, and would if they thought they could win.
This. Put another way, it’s not so much that the Pubs have changed what they are, it’s that they more or less drove the moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” out of the party and then cranked it all to eleven. I blame “movement conservatism,” the “No Enemies to the Right” coalition (now rather uncomfortably encompassing neocons, paleocons, theocons, bizcons and libertarians) that began with the Goldwater campaign in 1964, took over the GOP by 1980, went completely insane after Clinton took office, and went off its meds before Obama took office.
And almost did, this year. It was a near thing. If Romney had sat it out, it would be Obama v. Santorum this November. (Not Paul, that was never gonna happen. Not Gingrich either.)
Put yet another way: Compare Democratic Underground and Free Republic. Now, the degree to which these messageboards actually represent the views of Democrats and Republicans respectively is debatable. I expect the vast majority of Americans who care enough to vote consistently for one party or the other still do not care enough to post or even lurk on a partisan messageboard (and many in each party probably are too old, that is, too past-generational and pre-Information-Age, to know or care what a messageboard is anyway). Nevertheless, these sites can be taken as indicators of their respective parties’ world-views to some extent. Each is a hyperpartisan echo-chamber – and the two are not otherwise comparable. That is, they are similar in kind, and each site is home to a lot of bullshit and woo, and snark and malice, and general closed-mindedness and thought-blinders; but there is really no comparison in degree. If you are both intelligent and honest, you will agree that the Freepers, to judge by their posts, are by and large far more stupid, more ignorant, and more evil then the DemUs.