Well, that ain’t his fault, is it?
Well, all that they asked was for him to abandon his agenda, his policies, his political philosophy and his first born. Got a problem with that?
The claim I made was that Romney turned around Massachusetts. And Massachusetts was indeed turned around, at which point you wanted me to prove that Romney was responsible. That is unprovable. It doesn’t mean my claim is wrong, either.
Massachusetts’ unemployment rate was low and never got very high. He inherited 5.6%, left office at 4.7%. He left Massachusetts better than he found it. Just like everything else he’s ever done.
Dominos and Sports Authority were ailing when Bain acquired them and are now much healthier companies. Of course, I can’t prove that Mitt Romney himself made that happen. I guess the guy just happens to always pick the winning team. Which means he’ll probably do it again in the White House.
As for Obama’s failure at bipartisanship, of course Republicans want him to do what they want. And he wants Republicans to do what he wants.
You guys act as if Obama is the first President to face a hostile Congress. Presidents(and governors) facing hostile legislatures do one of two things:
-
They go over the heads of Congress to the people. If the President is popular and persuasive, he’ll cow Congress and they’ll do what he wants, or else face doom in the next election.
-
They change their agenda to match the reality of what they can get passed. there are always things the two sides can agree on, always things the two sides are too far apart on.
Obama has done neither. He’s acting as if the 2010 defeat never happened. Why should Republicans pass the very items the public voted them in to put a stop to?
Non-enforcement of DOMA, individual mandate rather than a real tax to establish public healthcare, second executive order on Guantanamo… Nope, no going over the heads of Congress or changing agenda there.
That’s not what I meant. I meant appealing to the public to get Congress to pass your agenda. Doing it through executive order is not the same thing.
and that’s not a change of his agenda either, that’s doing the same agenda.
so double wrong.
Well, if you accept that performance metric, you have to compare it with the national average. That’s right, isn’t it? It’s sort of like judging a company by its stock market performance without taking into account the broader index, of which the managers have no control.
I took the trouble of visiting the BLS and compiling unemployment rates for Massachusetts and the US. Here’s the chart:
http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/5d_130b61_c1eac8c5_oP.png.thumb
Overall, I’d say MA followed national trends. You can see steeper relative drops in Massachusetts unemployment for the first 10 months in Romney’s term. But then MA unemployment levels out for the next 2 years while the national situation continues to improve. In Sep 06 onwards, MA unemployment declines slightly while the US situation worsens. But the big changes occurred during Romney’s first 10 months of office: it’s difficult to see how that could have anything to do with his policies. At any rate, that was no Massachusetts miracle.
Thank you for listing these 2 companies. Specific claims permit a deeper investigation. I’ll repeat though that 4/10 of his most profitable companies went bankrupt. That suggests that Romney conducted a hollowing out strategy – making money by breaking relationships between management, workers and suppliers. I’m not chastising Romney for making bad bets. I’m chastising him for taking fundamentally sound firms, running them into the ground, and extracting large fees along the way.
Still, the best way to evaluate a candidate is through his stated policies, rather than his personality, notwithstanding Romney’s stilted behavior.
That’s the impression I get. I’ll vote for Romney, but there’s no excitement there like I had for Bush in 2000.
Dole was simply the anti-Clinton, much like Romney is just the anti-Obama. He needs to quit trying to act like a regular guy because 1) He isn’t and 2) When he fakes it he does a terrible job. He should admit that he has lived a life of privilege, doesn’t know what it is like to order a sandwich at Wawas, but sincerely try to communicate that he can empathize with people out of work and struggling to make it. He can’t screw that up any worse than his “regular guy” shtick.
He is the first president whose opposition party held a meeting on Inauguration Day to oppose every single position that he takes. He is the first president who, early in his term, the opposing party leader in the Senate said his top priority was to deny him a second term.
Awww someone likes Romney “He also visited the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, where he was mobbed by worshippers.” http://news.yahoo.com/israel-romney-declares-jerusalem-capital-162843104.html – somehow, my first thought is ‘I wonder how much he paid them?’
I’d really like to see a journalist interview some of the ‘mob’ and find out why they felt compelled to leaver their prayers to mob a Mormon leader who has the personality of cardboard and the singing style of a throttled cat.
Hey, Israelis like a bit of street theater as much as anyone.
“Mobbed by worshippers”? Great, now the Romney-as-Christ meme.
Quick! Cue the lepers!
If Romney were smart he would have sprung for the loaves and fishes package.
I certainly wouldn’t call what happened in Massachusetts a miracle. Just solid management. And a state with already low unemployment is going to see less job growth and less unemployment drop than a state with high unemployment. Mitt could not be reasonably expected to get Massachusetts down to 3%.
I’ve heard that claim and seen little to back it up. The examples cited were not exactly successes for Bain, although they did salvage what they could financially. But why invest in new equipment and other upgrades for companies you intend to hollow out?
Stated policies are just campaign promises. They are important, but past performance is more important.
Like they opposed his tax plan? Just this week, they didn’t filibuster it. It passed by simple majority vote. Know why it passed by simple majority vote? Because Reid did something unusual: he let the Republican alternative come up for a vote. THe dysfunction in the Senate is as much Reid’s fault as the Republicans. He won’t allow bills with majority support to come up for a vote. The Republicans have a functional majority and a technical minority on most issues. So reid has to tightly control what will and will not be voted on.
If Obama can’t succeed with Republicans in the minority, what’s he going to do when Republicans win the Senate, as is now likely? You’re basically saying that he can’t succeed in his 2nd term.
Obstruction is a two edged sword. To deal effectively with the economic crisis requires cooperation. But cooperation might have meant success, and the Republicans would rather nail their pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire than see Obama succeed. But a Romney admin will only mean to restore and expand Bush policy if he succeeded, and the same gridlock if he does not. If Obama wins there is at least the chance for good economic policy if he succeeds, and nothing worse than the same gridlock if he does not. Cold comfort farm.
Well, when the economic crisis was being dealt with, controlled everything and decided to pursue health care after the stimulus.
After 2011, the Republican Congress passed many bills they say will help the economy, but they die in the Senate.
You need a dumber audience, everybody here can pretty much read.
Look at the graph again. Massachusetts started with approximately equal unemployment to the rest of the US. For a while its unemployment was lower, then it was higher, then it was lower again. My take is that its performance was unexceptional and that Romney was a steward of his state, like most governors. http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/5d_130b61_c1eac8c5_oP.png.thumb The Olympics example is a better one unless somebody can point to some specific successful policy of his.
Actually campaign promises are typically pursued, conventional wisdom notwithstanding. Cite: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/campaign_promises034471.php Political scientists, however, have been studying this question for some time, and what they’ve found is that out-and-out high-profile broken pledges like George H. W. Bush’s are the exception, not the rule. That’s what two book-length studies from the 1980s found. Michael Krukones in Promises and Performance: Presidential Campaigns as Policy Predictors (1984) established that about 75 percent of the promises made by presidents from Woodrow Wilson through Jimmy Carter were kept. In Presidents and Promises: From Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance (1985), Jeff Fishel looked at campaigns from John F. Kennedy through Ronald Reagan. What he found was that presidents invariably attempt to carry out their promises; the main reason some pledges are not redeemed is congressional opposition, not presidential flip-flopping. Similarly, Gerald Pomper studied party platforms, and discovered that the promises parties made were consistent with their postelection agendas. More recent and smaller-scale papers have confirmed the main point: presidents’ agendas are clearly telegraphed in their campaigns. There’s no evidence that Romney would oppose anything passed by a Republican congress. And we know that they would essentially go with a continuation of Bush Administration policies, the guys who gleefully put a chainsaw to banking regulations. We tried that. It didn’t work. And to pretend that a 33% tax rate on those making $250,000+ is wonderful while a 36% rate is socialism is silly and sadly delusional.
Honestly? When Romney headed Bain, they invested in a lot of companies – though again 10 deals made 70% of the profits. I presume they had a variety of strategies.
The key thing though is that companies plotting takeovers didn’t hire industry experts or logistical engineers. What they typically did is slashed costs and levered up. What intrigues me is the dearth of counter-examples in Romney’s case. That’s why I asked for examples: props for giving me two upthread.
Full disclosure: my understanding of the takeover boom is shaped by the paper “Breach of Trust in Hostile Takeovers” (1988) by Shleifer and Summers. The paper doesn’t address Bain specifically.