Capitalist! We can't have that, can we.
Good to see the NYTs is really focusing on the relevant. |
|
|
to each according to his need. I wish they would apply that Karl Marx maxium to Alex Rodriquez! His salary would drop 90%. |
|
|
All right MSM, carry on with your rectal exam. You are just going to get egg on your face when you find nothing but a guy that did incredibly well as a venture capitalist. If I were Romney, I would use this occasion to brag about Capitalism and watch how the left squirms. |
|
Romney should be able to turn this into an arguement for a stronger economy. He can manage the economy better than anyone else. Just ask Cramer.
Romney is very good at taking attacks and making them work for him. It will be interesting. |
|
another day, another thread started by Hugh concerning Mitt Romney.
We all know the MSM is going to target ALL legitimate republican candidates so what makes the latest hitpiece newsworthy? Oh, I forget, it has to do with Mitt Romney. |
|
|
|
|
Bain Capital is a private equity firm, which means it is primarily involved in leveraged buyouts (as the article pointed out). This is the buy side of the financial world. Why do people keep referring to Romney's experience in investment banking (the sell side of the financial world), when he has no such experience? He has necessarily worked with investment bankers throughout his career (and lawyers and accountants), but that doesn't make him an investment banker. |
|
There is a new NYT piece out on how McCain is targeting Romney on immigration. Even the NYT admitts that this is a dangerous strategy for McCain. In my opinion it is also a desperate one.
Where does McCain get votes from if he can not sink Romney? He will have to take them from Rudy. He probably can't get them from Thompson and Gingrich is positioning at the anti Bush (McCain is the Pro Bush).
McCain is a very skill politican who often trys to persuade voters against thier gut feelings and better judgement to his schemes. They often sound good until they are law and a disaster. However, I think Romney will win this one. |
|
It’s not exactly the same, but where was the NYT in 2004? John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry paid almost no income tax because like many people who have immense wealth as opposed to large salaries, they didn’t have significant taxable income. Since there’s no wealth tax, her $2.9 billion fortune essentially goes untaxed every year.
This is indeed tired old class warfare. But unfortunately that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be effective with some voters. NYT headline writers aren’t the only people who stupidly find the idea of somebody making money at work to be depraved.
However, in this particular case, what the left thinks of Romney making money really doesn’t matter. Romney isn’t not running and losing to the left or the Times or Hillary. He’s one of the also-rans behind Republican nominee Rudy Giuliani. |
|
|
Sen Cantwell's campaign used this tactic when running against Mike McGavick in WA State in 2006. Her ads claimed that Mike McGavick was so cruel as to layoff many people at SAFECO. What the ad failed to mention was that Mike McGavick's efforts saved SAFECO and the jobs of the many employees it employed -- or that new employees were subsequently hired. Just more lies, deception, and manipulation. I hope Romney has a good response mechanism to these cheap shots. |
|
Thaale,
While I could never prove this, I would think that HH is responding to Frog's post and your concurrance that Hugh's lost sight of what the Dem's will do. Namely make Romney the "fattest of the "crooked" fat cats. I may have afforded yourself and Frog too much credit for this, and if so it nevertheless directly attempts to rebut that notion.
|
|
|
My take on HH however has been that he isn’t responding to anything: current events, polls, or feedback. As he himself constantly says, he’s faithfully trying to track how his 2006 book predictions abouthow the ’08 campaign will go are doing. HH seems to have committed himself early to everything he’ll write about this race, and if Rudy is unexpectedly running away with it, he’s still going to doggedly keep presenting the case for Romney over McCain, because that’s how he thought the race would develop. |
|
I have to admire Mitt Romney, and for that matter everyone who's running for president, for the sheer guts they have. People, and especially those who work in the media, are out for blood. Unfortunately it seems to be mostly conservative blood.
Although I haven't done a poll myself, I feel certain there are many, many, many good, intelligent, and competent people who could be excellent in the presidency, in Congress, and in state government, but who don't ever actually run for office. Who in his right mind would want to put himself and his family through that? I wouldn't
|
|
The media and press are out of control and I agree good men and women are reluctant to get into politics, but being President of the United States is a very special kind of job. As James Carville noted in talking about Al Gore last weekend, being famous is one thing, but it is not being President. It is not so much admiring a candidate who runs, but who runs well.
I agree with Eichendorff that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans are put through an Olympic level of scrutiny (practically forced to run the gauntlet).
The Dems go through more of a "Special" Olympics. |
|
|
I have the same sentiments that Eichendorff expresses. Many people don't give enough respect for the position of President. Even beyond what the media shows, there is so much time and energy that goes into overseeing a country. And no matter what you do, as hard as you try, you can't please everyone. Regardless of who wins, remember that the person elected is EVERYONE'S President. It is unfair to renounce the title just because your particular party does not win. |
|
I wonder if/when Romney ascends to become POTUS, Hugh will put out a new book called "A Mormon in the White House" sans the question mark.
|
|
|
This is not some special vendetta against Romney. This is no different from what they've been doing to Giuliani, and was part of the reason he had to sell the investment advisory arm of his business. It's not uncommon. Romney's a big boy - he'll be able to live with it. |
|
Hugh, did you predict in your book how the Bush machine would throw their support behind Fred Thompson? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4309.html
I cannot wait to see how you will blame the liberals, McCain or Romney's Mormonism for this development. |
|
|
I can't tell if that's good news or bad news for Fred to have the "Bush Machine's" tacit approval. |
|
|
If the Bush machine was behind Romney, I suspect our host would be trumpeting this as the final confirmation of Romeny's acendency and the demise of the McCain's candidacy. However, because the Bush machine has decided to throw its weight behind Fred, my guess is Hugh will simply ignore the development. With respect to the general electorate, I do not think it will matter much at all. The mood of the country is such that they want a sea change and any candidate that continues to defend this Administration and arguing for the status quo is assuring themselves of working in the private sector come 2009. |
|
...being seen as the chosen successor to Bush may be the kiss of death.
Maybe there’s a little family disagreement here? (or some typical Bush covering of all the bases). The early word in this campaign was that it was Romney who was the closest to Bush, and Mitt even had some of Jeb’s people in his corner. But now Jeb’s son is coming out for Fred.
I‘m just waiting to see who Noelle endorses. |
|
JF: Investment Bank, Hedge Fund, VC, Private Equity Firm: in terms of what they are doing these days, they are all starting to blur together aren't they? E.g. now-a-days VC's that don't see any good options for startup funding are starting to look at an purchase operating companies. They all have to do something with their funds, and the options are basically limited to the same few types for each.
Romney could probably move effortlessly between them all. |
|
|
Jeb Bush is supposedly feeling a little betrayed by Romney's attacks of immigration reform (at least that is the general sentiment). So he is alleging pulling away from Romney. I am not even sure that is happening yet. Seems like the Bush administration and its insider friends/cronies would want to keep their powder dry on this one until closer to the primaries and are probably not wed to any candidate out there right now. |
|
"I'm afraid at this point being seen as the chosen successor to Bush may be the kiss of death. "
I think you may be right, not because I dislike President Bush (I support him on the war all the way and like him as a person), but because the person who is anointed the "successor" may inherit the perception of being a conservative the same way George W. Bush is, regardless of how accurate that is. It is a mixed bag that may be poisonous. Conservatives want someone strong like George W. Bush on the war, but more conservative on immigration, spending and the like. |
|
|
Mitt won't win because he has tried to change almost everything about himself to get the support of the rightwing conservative vote at the upcoming Republican convention. Now he can't stand the fact that he was governor of Massachusetts. Why doesn't he just come back and pee on the state? |
|
Republican voters still get to decide who their nominee will be. Money only buys elections when people act like sheep. If 80% of Republicans are indeed seeking a conservative, we can nominate one. We can nominate Duncan Hunter. The money players won't like it and are trying to convince us only Rudy, Romney, or McCain can win. Hogwash. They want an open borders candidate. Give Americans a chance to vote for a candidate who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill it's most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
|
If I were Romney and ended up winning the nomination and the election, I would want Hunter as Homeland Security Chief if he would accept. |
|
Romney demonstrated extraordinary business savvy not once but hundreds of times in transforming rusted, brittle, inefficient businesses into world class job and wealth-generating machines. Isn't this the kind of demonstrated competence we want in the chief executive of the United States of America? What other candidate--Democrat or Republican--can boast this level of experience and accomplishment? Actor Thompson? Prosecutor Giuliani? Lawyers Clinton and Obama?
But the Democrat line is that Romney was greedy and inhumane in working these miracles. Trust it to the capitalist-hating left to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear. |
|
There's a great team if I ever saw one: Romney as president and Hunter as "Homeland Security Chief". No doubt Orange County would be safe as could be.
If this is a good idea, what is happening to this country. |
|
|
What is your point? My point is, you want a bulldog on immigration enforcement on homeland security and Duncan Hunter seems like a guy that could do that. |
|
|
Duncan wouldn't get past cocktail hour. This country, my country, needs a policy that accepts workers; it is the way the world works. As much I dislike George Bush, at least he has the cojones (and you don't) to work with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on immigration legislation that understands that. Time to face reality, |
|
|
|
|
We need illegal labor like the south needed slavery. |
|
|
I don't have any problem with immigration. We just need to control the border first and then let people in on the American people's terms, not theirs. There should be no reward for illegal entry. Now it could be argued that the process for legal entry is too long and costly. I would agree, which is why I am in favor of speeding up the application process and increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed in. Oh, BTW, Bush has cajones in spite of, not because of, working with Senator Kennedy on the immigration bill. |
|
kcraigpro,
Are you saying the South didn't need slavery? Get a brain, young man.
Alex,
your point taken, but we are really talking about the people who are here working, not those who wish to come. Maybe you and I and Bush and Kennedy are closer on this than you think. |
|
|
give it up. The New York Times is not your problem. Your problem is your right-wing brethren (including some on this website) who are clearly hostile to the ides of a Morman President. Unless you (and the Romney campaign)can change their minds, Romney is not going anywhere. |
|
Mitt Romney? I think I heard someone here wrote a book about him, I just can't remember who.... |
|
How about signing up for a remedial class in "getting the point."
Slavery was morally reprehensible regardless of how much the South depended on it.
The illegal worker morass is more of the same. We wan' de darkies to pick owah lettuce 'cause weah too im'pohtent to do it ouhselves.
Oh, we'll be benevolent. The Democrats will ensure of that. Power on the left depends on a steady supply of slave underclass votes.
The moral and right thing to do is to tighten the screws hard on the corrupt businessness that have been using cheap slave labor and passing the hidden costs on to the rest of us. Dry up the jobs and the slaves will clear out.
Doing right is expensive in the short term but much cheaper over the long haul. |
|
..."
What, is it above single digits yet? |
|
|
business, its obvious from the success of his company. However I believe that the issues in Iraq will trump any issues with the economy. The major themes of the last few debates have centered around future policies related to Iraq. |
|
Last month in South Carolina, home to the type of social conservatives Romney is courting, he said, "I think we should not call it the 'Z' visa; we should call it the 'A' visa, because it's amnesty and that's what it stands for."
Yet a week later in Florida, he said, "There are some who get involved in whether it is technically amnesty or not and I'm not really trying to define what is technically amnesty. I'll let the lawyers do that."
Despite his amnesty complaints, Romney said he would not favor rounding up the illegal immigrants already in the country. Rather, he supports them self-reporting to immigration authorities.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070604/D8PI91TO0.html
I wonder why he couldn't just repeat the comments he made in South Carolina when he was in Florida? Any guesses? |
|
|
I saw the clip of Mitt Romney debating agasint Ted Kennedey and it was surreal to see him be the same person he is today 14 years ago. I also saw him in the republican debate today and he did alright. His views on Iraq were strong and I would say he came out on the top 3. |
|