How did Mitt Romney win the Republican Nomination?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, without a doubt. I just wish I had more faith in Congress' ability to behave like mature, rational adults.

It seems inevitable, but the truth of the matter is that a not-so-insignifigant number of Romney's delegates are "soft pledged" and can change their votes at any time.

As an aside, I cheered just now as I learned that one the delegates I voted for (who's a Paul supporter) got nominated in my district.

It's been an interesting process this year, to say the least.

He was the best candidate for the job: the anti-Obama, the anti-McCain, the guy who really spoke directly to people's business and economic woes as well as not playing the part of religious zealot, as a governor was and is a 'beltway' outsider; he's a bit like Herman Cain without the excited antics or litany of sexual harassment cases, comparatively and comparatively to Newt he looks Leave-It-To-Beaver clean.

The other part to - his other anti was Santorum, who was far more fiscal neocon and cultural paleo. I think we've realized not only that the majority of the US doesn't want a cultural paleoconservative but that we also want someone a HECK of a lot better for business, especially with great hands on and applied knowledge, as opposed to Obama.

The only drawback I can think of that Romney really had was the insane "He's not a Christian" babble. That's it. Sniping at his megawealth doesn't even make sense because he built most of it and the more people try to bring it up the more they're reminding everyone listening of one of the strongest lines on his resume.

Think about this for a moment... As president, the only way he'd really be able to affect business in any way is to introduce legislation indirectly through a willing Senator or State Representative or write budgets granting huge subsidies to "big business," both of which are subject to revision and approval by both chambers of a Congress that may very well see a marked loss of Republican seats to progressive Democrats in the very near future.

Besides, say what you want, but I think the rambling economics wonk from Texas has more of a clue than the corporate raider when it comes to restoring America's fiscal health.

I don't think legislation to aid small to mid-sized business and beef up the grassroots of the economy is out of the question. That and a bill with immutable sense to it tends to speak for itself - the question is can he get a bill of that nature out there. If so its at times like that special interests and forces of corruption generally cower and lay off because they'll find themselves in a terribly polarizing situation which would illuminate everything they're about and try so hard to keep out of any organized public discourse.

Another thing - from the looks of things he should have at least two years with R Exec (him), R senate, and R house. He'll have the kind of steam that Obama did in his first two years and the smartest thing he could do is know exactly how precisely things need to be worked in order not to close that on himself. Obviously a zealot of any type - liberal or conservative, would simply blow up and advantage like that because they can't contain themselves, they're emotional people, and part of why we can't get anything done is that neither side can sort through possible legislative ideas to find out what they could get through with near certainty - partisans just aren't level-headed enough. Romney shows an uncanny nature to the other extend, albeit we do see the worse side of that with Romneycare.


Possibly, its just a shame that he had such extraordinary views on foreign policy. He essentially disqualified himself.

I don't completely follow how someone being successful at making money in the private sector gives them the understanding of what it takes to manage economic matters from the perspective of government policy. Unlike private entities, governments don't exist to compete and derive the greatest profit. It's possible for a successful business person to understand "the game" (i.e. economic system) from the egocentric perspective (i.e. how do you use knowledge of the economic climate to bring the greatest benefit to your own business), yet NOT understand how the animal works AS A WHOLE. The latter is what is needed to be able to set the rules so that they are fair and lead to the greatest benefit of the WHOLE. Obviously trusting capitalists to set all the rules themselves was a huge mistake, considering what happened leading up to the financial meltdown of 2008.

You forget that progressive Democrats played a large role in the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act. It has nothing to do with Capitalism or Keynesianism or Monetarism or any other economic theory and more to do with foolishly deregulating markets while a moral hazard existed. Privatizing gains while socializing losses is a relatively new concept that would have been completely foreign to Adam Smith.

Simply put he's intimately acquainted with the ways in which government gets in the way of private sector success. Our society wide welfare and distribution system, 80 - 90% of it at least, is capitalistic employment. When the private sector is strong and vibrant, the government has all the income it needs to be vibrant. In that sense we're not depending on him to approach working a government as if its working a private company necessarily, it may not even be a wise decision. If he can get some semblance of certainty back to lenders, investors, and entrepeneurs, we'll be in a much better spot. If he has an ear for spotting who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't on reforming government he doesn't need much more than to have them work out the legislation and he sort of lead the charge on the arguments - whether its reducing our attempts at Keynesianism, trying to find a more private and modular resolution to the healthcare problem in the US, etc. etc.. - he simply needs to be able to determine who the true experts are and how to organize them constructively.

Its absolutely crazy. I mean... for them to have had Fannie and Freddie as quasi-governmental organizations which a) received major government funding and b) floated on the stock market. That's like starting a company and putting your treasurer in charge of payroll and your warehouse guys in charge of inventory accounting.

This all sounds nice on its face, but during his tenure at Bain and Co., Romney wasn't interested in helping businesses maintain long term stability. He was focused on turning over smaller businesses that were considered "undervalued" for short term profit through leveraged buyouts. Sure, he knows how to make a quick buck, but he hasn't got the right "pedigree," if you will, to run the "corporation" of the United States that is the Executive branch of our government, and Marshall makes a perfectly valid point in that regard. His "champion of entrepeneurs, small business, and the middle class" persona is exposed as a myth when held to the light of his past.

I could see that claimed if its all he ever did but didn't he have a big hand in some major corporations that are doing great today? Staples for instance?

He did, but for every success story there are several horror stories.

A closer look at Mitt Romney's job creation record (L.A. Times Article)

Again, leveraged buyout firms don't care about long term gains or stability, because in their eyes this makes a company look less profitable or "undervalued" on paper. Rather, their focus is short turn profit and rapid turnover without having to use any of their capital.

I guess that's where you tell yourself that if that is the whole picture, you're looking at several other alternatives - Santorum the cultural paleo, Gingrich who has flashes of brilliance followed by huge flashes of foot in mouth and who'd divide like crazy, Paul who's on the libertarian extrema and wants to fold up our bases around the world, and then you have four more years of Barry O - makes sense only if you liked the first four.

I see your point, but we must remember that Santorum and Gringrich are both out of the running, which leaves Romney and Paul. Anyway, as much as I disagree with our current president and the way he's doing things, I'm not so desperate to see him lose that I would hold my nose and vote for someone like Romney.

I'm really still of the impression that he's a significantly better choice than Obama. Anyone else though can vote how they will.