Video: Romney ready to rock this economy back to life
posted at 8:56 am on January 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s not true that markets tank when Mitt Romney loses but it may well be true that tanking markets help Mitt Romney win. The looming disaster on Wall Street this morning is to him what Bhutto’s assassination was to McCain and Giuliani, a crisis pointing directly at his area of expertise. The economy’s already overtaken Iraq as issue number one for voters; if I were him, I’d be shooting new ads today specifically addressing the stock market plunge.
But let’s shake up the formula, boys. This looks like every other ad he’s done lately and for that reason is apt to be received as background noise. Fewer buzzwords about “change,” more bass notes and sinister voiceovers about an economy on the brink.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Long standing HA tradition! I get to leave a comment!!
csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Come on Mitt – SEIZE THE MOMENT !
stenwin77 on January 22, 2008 at 9:00 AM
How is the economy Mitt’s area of expertise more than anyone else? Just because he’s a businessman? Or because he’s richer than the rest of us and will lose a lot more in a Wall St. bloodbath than the rest of us?
Seriously, did he rescue the Massachusetts economy from disaster and I’m somehow not aware of it?
Enlighten me please, all you Mitt fans.
aero on January 22, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Romney / Thompson!
Swinehound on January 22, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Dude? No bling bling?
Actually that was a good ad. Heck, he convinced me that he is a conservative.
You do realize that the Mitt haters will claim that Mitt called in favors from his Wall Street cronies, and they are driving the markets into the ground to give Mitt the ultimate forum for his strengths giving Mitt the opportunityto establish his economic creds as the only man who can save America.
Bernanka! You magnificent bastard!!
csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Eh… Meant; Romney / Thompson?
Swinehound on January 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM
All that matters is that Fred is the least qualified to deal with this country’s economic issues.
csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 9:07 AM
go Mitt!
Washington is broken line is getting old though.
ctmom on January 22, 2008 at 9:13 AM
I’m with Mitt!, but new talking points are needed.
I agree, Allah. White noise.
madmonkphotog on January 22, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Ron Paul has been talking about the economy, the federal reserve and inflation in every debate. The candidates laughed at him at the time. Now they are taking up his positions. You have to admit, besides some of your disagreements with his foreign policy and the newsletter scandal, monetarily Paul has be right on.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
offroadaz on January 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM
?
Dude, he’s been against the abomination of Sarbannes-Oxley from the start.
He shifted the burden of the budget of Massachussets to a user-pays system, lowering taxes, increasing fees (very similar to a “fair tax”) He balanced the budget and left a surplus. He took the olympics, a money loosing venture for every country that ever hosted one and made money on it.
He’s turned around countless businesses, not just through lay-offs but through real growth.
You can question Mitt on a lot of his conservative bona fides but the economy is his, he owns it.
tlclark on January 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM
GO MITT..kick some butt…
twiggman on January 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM
I’m warming a bit to Romney. Not enough that I still don’t much prefer Rudy, but if Romney’s the nominee I’ll at least feel better about supporting him.
One thing I do have to say is that I–for one–am going to be very, very put off by any Republican putting up dark and forboding ads about the economy. So while I thought this was a little too generic and while I think “conservative change” is a loser slogan that someone who is all the lings I don’t like about Romney might come up with and for all those reasons, I’m not offended by that ad.
(Oh, and, whoever gets the nomination, odds are that they’re going to want a running mate who’ll actually get up, get out, and campaign. That rules out Fred.)
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Why is Mitt the best on the economy? Here’s some samplings:
1) of all the candidates, Mitt’s actually RUN a business. And not just one, but several. It was Mitt who launched and turned around several companies, such as Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and a couple of others (making his fortune in the process of turning them around). This was done via his investment companies.
2) He’s had experience turning around troubled government agencies. Case in point, the SLC Olympics. When Mitt took that over, they were bottoming out, losing money left and right–it was bad. I know, I live in Utah, and I worked during those Olympics. Mitt turned them around, and they were very successful and actually made money–something VERY few Olympics have ever done.
3) Mass. government was ballooning in debt. When he became governor, he balanced the budget the first year and did it without raising taxes (though, to give the anti-Mitt people their due, a few fees did get raised on some items, so it wasn’t totally revenue neutral. Still, no taxes were raised).
To sum up: Mitt made his fortune taking foundering, in debt, horribly run companies and turning them around to become great success stories. That’s what Mitt does: fix things. It’s why there is no one on any side of the Aisle that can hold a candle to Mitt in the economy department: He fixes economic problems for a living.
Hope that helps!
Vanceone on January 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Vanceone….. Well said.
twiggman on January 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Go Mitt!
davenp35 on January 22, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Jim Cramer (not exactly the most conservative guy in the world… MAD MONEY) stated on his program not long ago that he believes Mitt is the most impressive business person he’s ever encountered.
I agree that Mitt needs to OWN this issue. If he gets to go up against Hildebeast, can you imagine the two of them debating who knows what’s best for an ailing economy.
I need to stop now. Too many RINOS deadset on 8 years in the wilderness are going to vote for McCain.
Sugar Land on January 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Ditto this.
I was a Rudy guy, then a Fred guy, now a Mitt guy…OMG I just thought…maybe I’m the curse!! If so I should shift my support to McCain.
tlclark on January 22, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Mitt’s mantra should be: HILLARY AND MCCAIN HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PROBLEM FOR DECADES! I AM LEADING THE SOLUTION !
Why should anyone vote for Hill of John when they abused their power in DC. No More !!!
stenwin77 on January 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Doesn’t work, unfortunately. I was for Rudy, then Fred, too. Decided I must be the Kiss of Death, so I endorsed Huckabee. But to my dismay, he’s still on the campaign trail several weeks later. Sigh. Maybe it’s a delayed effect. If that’s the case, don’t wait too long to endorse McCain! ;-)
aero on January 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM
So, um…
If McCain gets bounced hard out of Florida, and the Dem fight is a bruiser with Obama landing some good solid blows (harhar) on Slick Willy to the point that the Clintons just won’t take him as a running mate…
Maybe McCain will sound out Hillary like he did Kerry?
Clinton/McCain, anyone?
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Mitt’s the man. He is clearly the best man for the job. At least to me he is.
Geronimo on January 22, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still very, very much a Rudy guy. While I take the points of everyone here regarding what Romney’s done in the private sector, I think Rudy’s turnaround record swamps Romney’s. And that’s not a knock on Romney, it’s just a recognition of the impossible task Rudy took on and accomplished.
New York pre-Rudy was a place with multiple cancers eating away at its core. It was considered ungovernable and at the root of all its problems was an entitlement mentality of the citiznery that looked out only for their own narrow interests first, and damn anyone else.
Rudy made that city work. He made it sing. He transformed it into a place that you wanted to be. And I speak as Texan who spent time in pre- and post-Rudy New York. The transformation was nothing short of breathtaking.
Add to that the fact that he did all this while having daily scorn heaped upon him by the new York Times and the liberal elite, that he knows how to fight them and hw to beat them…
I’m a Rudy guy as long as he’s in the race.
And I’m seeing just a little bit more reason to hope every day that his Florida strategy just might pay off.
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM
How odd… it was as if something reached down into the core of my being, and…. click! I found myself liking the idea of President Romney… what just happened to me?
Frozen Tex on January 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Dude also thinks that dollar bills are actually spying on him.
Darksean on January 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM
What these ads need is promises to protect us from robot armies and zombies.
AbaddonsReign on January 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I’m Mitt Romney. The instability in our financial markets is troubling and many people are rightfully concerned with our financial future. Something must be done and done now. The proposed stimulus package President Bush put on the table on Friday is a good start. More must be done.
While working in the private sector I specialized in turning around under performing companies. I saved or created thousands of jobs.
I want to do the same for America.
My name is The Rock and this is what I wish Mitt would say.
The Rock on January 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Good message – Good man – go Mitt !!
Now – one word of advice – WATCH OUT FOR MCCAIN !!!
McCain is unstable and he is going to BLOW when he realizes he is going to lose – and he will try to take as many down with him as possible.
McCain is going to blow – and it won’t be pretty.
jake-the-goose on January 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM
I hope so!
csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM
And anyone who thinks that the President has much influence on the economy at all is unqualified to vote.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 10:25 AM
WELL SAID – VERY WELL SAID
jake-the-goose on January 22, 2008 at 10:30 AM
President’s implement and kill programs that have huge impacts on our economy. Think Hillary or Obama, and a Dem Congress raising taxes.
CliffHanger on January 22, 2008 at 10:30 AM
What a strange mind, what an extreme example of dreaming up a a make believe scenerio.
Will all of you great economists, and businessmen…point me to the great President that was a successful businessman. How many were haberdashers (one), peanut farmer (one), owned a ball team (one), sold carbon offsets (one).
Show me the correlation between being a businessman and running a country. This is always the argument, but I have never seen a relationship between the two.
One is political, one is business, they both operate totally different. Very few, if any businessmen I know, would make an average president…businessmen make decisions, politicians create decisions. Businessmen solve problems, politicians create problems. Businessmen lower spending and overhead (what president has lowered and cut spending), what president has done that? Which president has lowered our tax (or fee as you Mitt-wits are so fond of) burden?
right2bright on January 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Goooooooooo Mitt!
JustTruth101 on January 22, 2008 at 10:39 AM
So you’re willing to give Bill Clinton credit for the .com boom in the 90’s then? Or FDR’s socialist New Deal programs for bringing us out of the Great Depression?
Private enterprise drives our economy- not the federal government and certainly not the President. The President has very little influence on the economy, and I say again: if you believe the campaign rhetoric suggesting that the President has a “huge” role influencing the economy, you’re simply unqualified to vote. Stay home on election day.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Please tell me you’re joking.
I know you loathe Mitt, but your statement that Presidents don’t have much influence on the economy is jaw-droppingly stupid. Maybe you’re too young to remember President Carter?
Anyhoo, the ad is just okay. I’d like to see more specifics but I recognize it’s hard to fit it all in in 30 seconds.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
In your dreams, dude.
Sheesh.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Pretty broad statement. But not true. There was a pretty in-depth and glowing article in the New York Times about the wonderful changes Hillary wanted to make in the structure of how our government relates to markets.
Hillary expounded that markets have–in essence–rum amok, and what’s needed is more regulation. Now, granted, it takes a willing Congress to pass the laws, but..are you old enough to remember paying for long distance? I am. To the tune of a grand a month to a government regulated phone company.
Do you think the Internet would have thrived if it had been regulated by the government from the outset? Are you old enough to remember regulated airlines? Government in essence setting fares and schedules for the handful of players allowed at the table.
Southwest Airlines got its start in regulated times by flying purely intrastate–and thus unregulated–in Texas.
Hillary actually put forward the idea that the economy works better with more regulation, which is patently absurd. Not only does regulation strangle innovation, but once government is making the rules of the marketplace, there’s more incentive for corruption.
The next four years, we’re going to have a President who puts forward policies and proposes legislation that puts us in charge of our economic decisions, or the government.
And if you don’t think that’ll have an impact on the economy, well, maybe you’re not all that qualified to vote either.
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Presidents and a willing Congress can do more harm than good to our economy. It is often better that they leave well enough alone or do implement policies that stimulate investment.
Who here besides Hollowpoint and Jake doesn’t think that a Clinton or Obama with a Dem Congress will damage our economy…?
CliffHanger on January 22, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Let’s list the great businessmen that have affected politics recently…
Perot
Forbes
Rockefeller (well his family money)
any others?
right2bright on January 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I was no fan of Carter, but to suggest that he caused the economic troubles of his term is jaw-droppingly stupid with regards to the economy.
A President can influence deficit spending and monetary policy, but in the end these factors have a modest role in affecting the economy. Any candidate who says they are going to fix the economy are pandering to those who don’t know any better.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM
That’s true, however, confidence in a leader can do a lot to calm fears. For years, Americans have expressed an uneasiness over the economy, even tho’ it appeared to be chugging along. Bush was always stunningly weak on making his case to the American people.
stenwin77 on January 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Can a President have some influence on the economy by reducing regulation and such? Sure. However the naive belief that the President deserves most of the credit or blame for the state of the economy at a given time is a depressingly prevalent and inaccurate one.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Who said this…?
CliffHanger on January 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM
True, but in the end that doesn’t really have a huge impact- the Dems (and allies in the MSM) were always there to loudly spread doom and gloom, even going so far as to spin positive economic news into bad news.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM
In not so many words:
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
The Rock on January 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Vanceone on January 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM
csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 9:07 AM
And- Everyone who voted for Clinton in 1992 because they blamed HW Bush for the economy.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Yes, and it would be like saying that Rudy Giuliani had no impact on reviving NYC’s economy, or that Mao Tse Tung had nothing to do with millions of people dying of starvation.
Some of these right wingers are so far right they end up catching up with the Useful Idiots on the Left.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
So, from a macro-economic perspective, does it really matter who becomes President? Apparently, some believe it does not.
Those who do believe otherwise, are free to not vote. Nice.
CliffHanger on January 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM
A lot of those people voted for Perot, hence Clinton never did get a majority.
Clinton takes credit for many things which would never have happened if not for the 1994 Republican Revolution in congress. When it comes to our economy, it matters who our president is and it matters who is in congress.
Democrats are price-controlling, tax raising, entitlement expanding fools and there is no way you can argue that our economy would prosper with a Dem President and a Dem controlled congress.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I hate the ad. It gives the voters the wrong information about how the economy works. The voters need to know that there will always be recessions and that no politician will save them from recessions. Instead Romney poses as our economic messiah and says “permanent tax cuts” to stop the recession. What happens the next recession? Do you think that the left isn’t smart to figure out how to counterattack blatant nonsense? It has been noted that that Obama boy is articulate and clean.
Even if the message wasn’t nonsense beyond the fact a permanent tax cut will shorten one particular recession, the pose of a politician being an economic messiah is large part of the problem. The conservative message about the economy is that the government is fundamentally unable to make the economy better. It can only take actions to make the economy worse. It’s only by wide spread acceptance of this idea can we stop big government. When any politician portrays himself as leading into the economic promise land, leftist economics is reinforced.
thuja on January 22, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Well, I think that in many ways we’ve come in this country to about the place NYC was when Rudy was elected mayor. And yes, you’re right that oftentimes a President gets credit for or blame for stuff that happened on his watch whether he could have done anything about it or not.
Fact is that someone though at this point is going to have to make some tough decisions, and do some hard things and tell some unpleasant truths to fix what’s wrong in our country and in the process our economy.
Someone’s going to have to explain to the country that Social Security is just welfare if the answer to fixing it is to tax “the rich” and never ever give them that money back. It was supposed to be savings, remember?
Someone’s going to have to tell autoworkers in Michigan that the reason their jobs are going away is that ther union contracts are adding a couple grand to the cost of the cars they build for sale vs. their rivals. And if they want to save their jobs they’re going to have to give that up.
Someone’s going to have to tell the NEA that they’re ruining country’s future by padding their nests and not educating our children.
Ans someone’s going to have to tell everyone in this country that people in China and India aren’t going away. They have a right to want the same things we want for ourselves and our families, and we’d better put down the damn video games and our attitudes and realize we’re going to have to compete to win.
I see one guy in this race with the pair to do those things.
Ain’t Mitt or Fred or McCain or Hillary or Obama and certainly not Gomer or Paul.
It’s Rudy.
And as President I think he can make a difference.
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Too bad for you then that we won’t know if that’s true, because after Florida his campaign will be as dead as Fred’s is.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Investment tax credits, reduced regulation, lower personal taxes, elimination of the Estate Tax, reducing the size and scope of government…
Nope, there’s nothing a conservative politician can do to stimulate the economy.
CliffHanger on January 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Possible. But at this point I think not. All these primaries are in some measure about flattering the citizens of each particular state. I admire Rudy for the ‘all-in’ approach and the guts it took to do it. And I suspect that on some level that Rudy’s bet it all on them and on their state is going to flatter Floridians enough to make a differnce.
Although I will admit that neither you or I know. I think Rudy or Romney or McCain has a chance to win it or lose it based on Thursday’s debate.
I’m hoping Rudy lands one right on Johnny Mac’s jaw.
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 11:39 AM
A president can stimulate the economy with incentives (if congress goes along), and can influence the economy with “goals” and priorities, maybe even taking a stand against some fiscal policies (fight against or for taxes); but the effect is years down the road. The president has more of an emotional role, then a real fiscal. There is no “money spigot”, it takes years to filter programs through; meanwhile, congress is spending money, basically unchecked.
Here is my challenge again, what proof is there that a good businessman makes a good president…where/when has it happened?
Now one basic question for all of you civic leaders…who controls spending? Congress or the President…
right2bright on January 22, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The conservative message is that unsound policies can make the economy flounder, that a rising tide lifts all boats, that tax cuts generate more, not less, revenue and so forth.
Among other things, Mitt wants to cut corporate tax rates, and he wants to make sure that our trade agreements are negotiated in a way which benefits us, not the other guys.
He wants to invest in R&D which will improve fuel technology, energy technology and so forth so we can compete with China and Asia.
All of these things are crucial to our economic well-being and to our national security.
He does not believe that handing out cash is the solution as that only provides a temporary reprieve.
Mitt is not presenting himself as an economic messiah, but there are many things he could do which would promote long term economic growth and get us back on course.
Both Mitt and Rudy have a lot to offer when it comes to economic policy, but I give a slight edge to Mitt.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I agree. I did like what Rudy said in the last debate about taking to the streets to let people know that they could make a difference in their own lives, not just keep living off the Gov. I have seen this with my own eyes. I know people who get into the system and their children and their children and so on. Genrations that learn from the generation before. They don’t know any other way. Sometimes people just need to be told that they are capable of depending on themselves, fulfilling their own dreams, not depending on the Gov.
kcd on January 22, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Anyone can say the right thing, that’s what focus groups do, they tell you the right thing to say.
But what have the candidates done, in their past, that substantiates their “born again fiscal policies”.
Did they raise taxes or fees?
Did their budgets grow?
Remember, the argument they use is that if they meet or beat “projections”, then they have accomplished their goals. Of course if their projections are billions too high, well, you figure it out.
Do they want more government control with fees (more insidious then taxes) or taxes?
Do they use or support government funding of abortion.
Do they want to close “loopholes”, but have their clients use those “loopholes”…often saying, well they are legal.
Off shore banking for tax evasion; do they help their supporters or clients use that method, and what have they done to shut it down?
Do they allow businesses to hire illegal immigrants with impunity? Did they turn their back on businesses that broke those laws? What was there prosecution record?
Lots of questions…
In other words, what is their record, we know what they say; they all say it, but what does their record say…
right2bright on January 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I think you jumped the shark with your comment, however if you had said something along the lines of “Presidents (and politicians) rarely influence the economy as much as they say they do” you’d be dead on. Politicians cravenly grab credit for anything good that happens to occur while they’re in office, and then try to spin away the blame for their failures. This has probably been going on since the days of living in caves. People need to learn the difference between things that politicians influence and things they don’t. I wouldn’t hold my breath here.
Instances where Presidents have an immediate hard impact on the economy are fairly rare – congress has the most leverage here. There are a few good examples, however, of presidential policies making a bang – the most notable one in living memory is Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
The biggest problem here is that there is substantial lag between the implementation of a policy and its impact. Most laws don’t go into effect right away, and even when they do it can take years for the effects to become apparent. At this point, the president is usually long gone and his successor reaps the reward / blame.
Personally (as a business owner) I think that 99% of the time the government should do nothing – just get out of the way.
ErikTheRed on January 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM
See, honestly, that’s where Mitt loses me a bit. Because to me, that’s pandering, or, it’s liberalism.
The absolute, stupidist, wish-I-could-have-smacked-him-for-being-so-freaking-stupid line I’ve seen in the debates on either side this year came from Gomer when he said, and I paraphrase, ‘Shazzaam! Why don’t we jus’ offer up uh prize of a billlliun dollars to the guy who invents a car that gets a hunnert miles per gallun.”
Because number one, Gomer: Anyone can do that. It’s simple power to weight. The problem is that there isn’t enough energy in a gallon of gas to move a car that weighs enough to move itself and your chuuby butt around in any reasonably safe and comfortable fashion.
And more importantly number two: That prize is already out there, nitwit! It’s call a patent. You think if some guy did come up with some little black box that got a hundred mpg out of a Suburban he’d need your billion bucks? It’d be chump change compared to the reward he’d get in the market.
Other than in instances where the mission was limited and defined and there was no real immediate commercial benefit, such as going to the moon or building the bomb, the record of government investment as a driver of innovation is pretty damned weak.
I’d listen intently to any politician who actually said that, and actually said that we have to consider teh true cost to our economy of our dependence on oil, that there’s no magic bullet that government is going to find in a trunk in our attic, and that we’re going to have to make some apinful choices in the coming years to deal with our dependence on oil.
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Buffet
Soros
Murdoch
Cuban
Will that do?
Califemme on January 22, 2008 at 12:40 PM
You’re right, but I was in the mood for snarking on the silly myth that our economy lives and dies on the wings of the President, and that one Republican candidate is going to have a significantly greater impact on the economy than the others.
Hollowpoint on January 22, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Chuckling…
Just as with Jimmy, there are two t’s in Warren Buffett.
But I don’t think you’re making much of a point. While all these guys are to some greater or lesser extent influencing debate in this country, none of them have ver heald office or are very likely to.
(Cuban? Please.)
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Heh! True, so true… But as far as affecting the political climate, you have to admit that Soros and Cuban (think Redacted) have spent quite a few $$ telling us just how BAD America is… And with all the PACs Soros is funding, he might not be running, but I’d bet he gets a nice room at the WH if Hil or Obama win!
Califemme on January 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Yeah, but, what’d Redacted bring in? $13.95? Cuban got more notariety out of that for being a dumbass than for influencing debate.
And I agree about Soros, I just don’t think it’s in the context of this discussion, which is that it is reasonable to ask just how often in the past anyone has been able to transfer business accumen to the task of leading/governing.
And the answer truly is: Not very often.
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Plus…
Stay with me here for a minute…
Who’s the last guy who was a businessman, then a state governor, then ran for President?
You guessed it. George W. Bush. Now the fact is, he was an oilman in Texas in the middle of an oil bust, and he was managing general partner of the worst team in the history of professional sports (my own beloved Texas Rangers) so it’s hard to really call him a “succesful” businessman.
But still.
Hillabama will pull this stick out and beat him mercilessly about the head and shoulders with it, that he’s the Second Coming of W, just you watch and see.
And I’d say that he might even be able to use that to his advantage, except that he doesn’t even seem to be able to remember our current president’s name.
Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I analyzed the candidates and the only one I can honestly see as POTUS is Romney. He is the total package. Not perfect but close enough. I could be wrong.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on January 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Im not looking to vote for a CEO-in-chief, although Mitt does seem to be well in his element here.
Frank Luntz might look at this ad and encourage him to be more “aspirational”
PolitiNOOB on January 22, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Why even give this “bad economy” meme any weight?
The only thing really wrong with the economy is the price of oil & gasoline, and no artificial stimulus is going to fix that. Only drilling for oil wherever it may be deposited & building refineries in the US will fix it. Giving the auto makers 20 billion dollars isn’t going to fix it. (Although 20 Billion put into building nuclear generating plants might help.)
The other economic problem is due to stupidity, not economics; buying a house more expensive than you could really afford on an Adjustable Rate Mortgage. Giving those people taxpayer money to bail them out isn’t going to fix the economy.
The Democrats always always lead with the “Worst Economy Ever” lie, and then the stupid Republicans follow along; both offering political ’solutions’ that will only make things worse.
And now that (Carl Cameron is saying, anyway) Fred is definitely, officially, out, there isn’t one person left in either side of the Presidential campaigns that will tell the truth.
LegendHasIt on January 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Bush said “Read my lips. No new taxes”. he promptly raised them.
That is why Perot was voted for.
csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Ummm, I was kind of hoping for a more positive reaction…I mean this is what businessmen do who get involved in politics?…doesn’t bode well for Romney.
But a list that perhaps proves my point; a good businessmen, does not a good politician make.
right2bright on January 22, 2008 at 4:12 PM
No matter.
You could test any one of Mitt’s ads with The Glacier, $50 Lettuce Guy or The Rookie and voters will get the warm fuzzies for Romney every time.
The Ugly American on January 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Exactly.
Which is precisely why AP is correct on this.
Mitt really needs to seize this opportunity to speak on his managerial strengths.
The Ugly American on January 22, 2008 at 4:21 PM
The best politician, is the one who has done nothing.
It always cracks me up when people start talking about all the things their candidate has done.
I think I would vote for the guy who said, 12 years in the senate, and I never wrote a bill, voted for a bill, in fact I did nothing.
Vote for Erik, he has done nothing…
A vote for Erik, is a vote for nothing…
Vote for Erik, he won’t screw things up…
Don’t complain about Erik, he hasn’t done anything…
right2bright on January 22, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Amen! :) :) :)
Theophile on January 22, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Comment pages: