Romney / Thompson!

Swinehound on January 22, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Amen! :) :) :)

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

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…

You can question Mitt on a lot of his conservative bona fides but the economy is his, he owns it.

Exactly.

Which is precisely why AP is correct on this.

Mitt really needs to seize this opportunity to speak on his managerial strengths.

This looks like every other ad he’s done lately and for that reason is apt to be received as background noise.

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.

Buffet
Soros
Murdoch
Cuban

Will that do?

Califemme on January 22, 2008 at 12:40 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.

Today is a big day. Two primaries are being held: one in South Carolina and the other in Nevada. Whilst the focus of most political coverage will be on the winners of these contests, it may be a good time…

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

Bush said “Read my lips. No new taxes”. he promptly raised them.

That is why Perot was voted for.

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.

Frank Luntz might look at this ad and encourage him to be more “aspirational”

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.

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 12:48 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 12:40 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.)

ErikTheRed on January 22, 2008 at 12:30 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.

Let’s list the great businessmen that have affected politics recently…

any others?
right2bright on January 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Buffet
Soros
Murdoch
Cuban

Will that do?

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.

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.

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

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.

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…

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.

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

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.

Typhoon on January 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Both Mitt and Rudy have a lot to offer when it comes to economic policy, but I give a slight edge to Mitt.

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

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.

Nope, there’s nothing a conservative politician can do to stimulate the economy.

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.