I don’t think it’s such a good thing. Nationalism still means feeling some sense of shared destiny with other people, even if it’s just people from one country. These post-nationalists are loyal only to themselves.
I wonder why he did that… Any guesses?
While expecting nationalism from everyone else; “support the troops”, “I honor your service to our country”, etc. But if we raise taxes on the rich a few percent, it seems to be just accepted that they’ll move to another country.
Knock it off.
This is not The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Did what? Use an example that wasn’t actually true? Who knows. Sloppy research by his staff. He was searching for some “bad news” for Ohioans to latch onto since he has a chance to win that state. This is Populist Romney. Just one of the many personas you get if you vote for him.
If I ever hear him describe something as “groovy” I will go totally stabby.
How about “swell”?
No, I mean why he would use a made-up example when there is an example that he undoubtedly has to know about that he has yet to comment on.
Because it would be politically stupid to do so?
But I think you over-estimate how much Romney knows about the day-to-day goings on at Bain. He’s been gone from there for over a decade. There’s a good chance he might know, but it’s certainly it’s not “undoubtable” that he does.
And note the double standard. The President is not responsible for the day to day operations of the federal government even though he is actually in charge, yet Romney is responsible for a company he hasn’t had a management role in since Bill Clinton was President.
No one in this thread is saying that.
Not this thread, but we’ve had LONG conversations about it in other threads. The double standard does exist and always has. It’s not partisan, we just expect higher standards from the private sector than we do from our government. Which is an argument for bringing that kind of accountability to our government by installing someone who is used to that accountability.
Cite, please?
Well, if the same posters are saying that in other threads, do call them out. But if it’s just some other posters, then so what? I don’t see the point of calling out poster X for statements made my poster Y.
Fair enough. I was assuming there was consensus on that point since I was completely alone in the other thread arguing that the President was accountable for what happens in his administration.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=662283&highlight=fast+furious&page=5
To avoid a thread hijack, I’ll just conclude this line of argument by pointing out that the public is very forgiving towards Presidents for things that happen in their administration that they were not directly involved in. For all “the buck stops here” talk, the buck in practice tends to stop with an underling and the public generally accepts that. It is very unlikely that the public would hold something against Mitt Romney for something a company he formerly led has done.
If Mitt Romney cannot control it for a company he started and still makes millions of dollars a year from, what makes you think he can control it for the county?
Even if he cannot control it as you allege (something I don’t buy) nothing is stopping him from divesting himself of whatever is owed him. He could even make a big announcement and come off looking good.
Yet, he doesn’t.
No candidate is going to come out in support of outsourcing, but a grand display in opposition to it would be over the top and give more credence to the Luddites than they deserve.
As for how well Romney can run his administration, we’ve seen how well Romney runs things when he is actually in charge of them. The best his opponents can do is try to pin things on him that weren’t under his control, while at the same time supporting an incumbent with multiple failures that cost lives.
BTW, helpful short video on outsourcing:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-the-candidates-wont-explain-about-outsourcing/
Now it would be nice if we could get leadership to explain why this stuff is actually good in many cases. Last guy to come right out and defend free trade was Bill Clinton. Since then, candidates have been content to demagogue and cater to people’s fears.
He doesn’t deserve to be in the White House if he rails against outsourcing while profiting from it. Period.