Skip to comments.ROMNEY THE PRESIDENT-CEO(VANITY)
Posted on 09/03/2012 7:19:46 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
As someone who was at first for Sarah Palin, then Herman Cain, then Newt Gingrich, I am beginning to believe we may in the end consider ourselves lucky to have nominated Mitt Romney.
What I see that I like begins, but does not end, with the nomination of Paul Ryan. Mitt did not succumb to political expediency in this pick. No pander pick here, even for a position that is ALWAYS a pander pick. Ryan is not a woman, not black, not Hispanic, not a Floridian, not an Oihoan. Paul Ryan is not a long-time friend. It also speaks volumes that Ryans reasoning for opposing Obamacare would make it impossible for him to be an asset to help Mitt defend Romneycare.
This says to me that Romney will govern as a CEO, and I see this as a good thing that only Sarah Palin, among my early favorites, might have risen to. By govern as a CEO, I mean that good CEOs are first and foremost master delegators. Effective CEOs are not concerned about having people they hire shine a brighter light than even the boss. Good CEOs are comfortable behind the curtain. Good CEOs understand that organizational chemistry requires different molecules, and catalysts.
Good CEOs are concerned with one thing and one thing only-results.
In this case, not only do we have someone here who has the CEO mindset of results first, this particular CEO-and this is important-is experienced in TURNAROUNDS.
Speaking of experience, all our Presidents' administrations have been products of their personal experiences. Who can deny that this is not what we've beem painfully watching unfold in the last three years?
Romneys Bain Capital experience thus becomes a tremendous positive for me here. You see, in the world of company acquisistions, there are many, many companies that can be turned around simply by raising revenues OR by reducing expenses. These are companies that Bain did not consider. Too easy, and therefore too expensive. No, think of Bain as the private sectors version of the RESCUE SQUAD. The nature of their business model was to take on the really sick patients, the seemingly terminal ones. There was certainly more risk involved in taking on these companies, but tremendously more profit to be had. These would be the companies in which a profitable outcome would require the simultaneous raising of revenues AND the reduction of expenses. Romney got rich by taking on these challenges, and he won't be able to help himself in taking risks as our nation's CEO-once he is the CEO. Are you getting my drift?
I dont think for a minute that Romney chose Ryan as some figurehead who would send a positive political message during the campaign and then be relegated to a non-staff, symbolic position, like nearly every VP in our countrys history. No, I think Paul Ryan will be allowed-no-REQUIRED by Romney to become the spearhead for the revolution in fiscal structure our economy requires. A CEO cannot afford to waste a position, Paul Ryan will have to produce. It's my guess he will be tasked with the dual roles of CFO, and head of the all-important sales division.
The mindset of an effective CEO will see beyond political expediency, theres a result that will be sought here with a single mindedness of purpose.
The convention for the Romney campaign was about positioning to get elected, as it should be. The choices of speakers however seemed to have the unique quality of serving both ends, as those chosen perhaps for their demographic qualifications also had had success in rescuing in some cases, organizations that faced similar seemingly impossible tasks. It shows me that Romney the CEO knows exactly what hes getting into. This contrasts with Obama as it is obvious he had no clue what he was getting into.
Another indication that Romney will govern as a CEO comes in his announcement that he will fire Ben Bernanke. Think about that for a minute. A candidate for the Presidency has boldly declared he will fire the head of the Federal Reserve. Romney could have thought it, planned it, and never said it, and his campaign would not have been harmed. Only a small portion of even the most fiscally astute voters will move his way over this announcement, and there was potential to affect the scaredy-cat vote the opposite way. Romney said this because he knows that when applying for the CEO position, you must tell the board WHO YOU WILL FIRE first and foremost, or you may regret the day you were hired. Romney apparently lives by the advice CEO's give each other, which is that "if you have to swallow a frog, don't stare at it".
The announcement that Romney would fire Bernanke should be music to our ears. It was about timing and leadership, and a shot over the bow of Obama's ship. Remember, Obama hasn't fired ANYONE. The CEO in Romney told him it was best to show who was going to be boss-and leaders instinctively know when these opportunities to show leadership arise, and they don't squander them.
After the election, if Romney wins, we will know if I'm right or wrong by who he hires and fires. Simply put, an effective CEO will continue to throw political expediency to the wind and hire doers.
I dont think for a minute that Clint Eastwoods speech was not vetted by the Romney campaign, perhaps Romney himself. Eastwoods comment that maybe its time for a business man was pitch-perfect.
Mitt Romney thinks like a CEO, he's beginning to show he will govern like a CEO. I believe that an effective CEO is what this country needs right now, and has needed for some time.
Change from an incompetent socialist to a competent socialist.
What a plan.
Thanks for posting the Third Party bot political fridge response to this thread.
Romney or Obama will be the next President. Your constant whining about Romney does one thing, help elect Obama
That may not be the intent of your actions, it is their outcome.
So why don’t you drop the charade and just register as a Democrat propaganda bot now?
Supreme Court 2012
Want to lose sleep. Read this.
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important
question regarding the upcoming presidential election: appointments to the
“If Mitt wins the nomination, I will enthusiastically support his
candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask
you to keep these things in mind:
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this yr
3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in Aug
4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a wk ago. In addition, Justice
Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer.
5 Justice Stephens has already said he would retire & is just waiting for
Obama to be re-elected.
The next president could appoint as many as 5 new Justices over the next 4
yrs, or over the next 8 yrs if a new President gets a 2nd term. This
election is about much more than the ObamaCare Tax.
Whomever we elect as president in Nov is almost certainly going to choose
at least 1 new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of
other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous
decisions about our lives for decades to come.”
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt
Romney or Barack Obama, THINK AGAIN.
So, for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t
get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win, imagine this:
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER.
After you have stopped gasping, kindly send this to your list of concerned
I don’t think so. I’m seeing what you’re seeing and it looks more promising every day. I am shocked and pleasantly surprised at how this is coming together.
Name one conservative Romney picked for the courts in Massachusetts.
Horse balls. I quit reading right there.
Let’s try to look forward if you can.
So you want more Elena Kagans and Sonia Sotomayors?
What is your point?
Thanks for you point of view.
I thought you had turned over a new leaf?
Get out the Vaseline guys, the next four years will hurt even more.
Is Romney going to promote Agenda 21 and allow the New World Order to take place or is he going to refuse to fund it.
Keep in mind that GATT was passed without hardly any resistance. Bush had to fight for some of his Free Trade Agreements, but he got them passed which effectively removed all of the heavy manufacturing industry from America.
The majority of COOL - Country of Origin Labeling was struck down by the World Trade Organization a year ago because other countries objected to our resistance to buy fish and meet from foreigners because they do not use the same health regulations as we do.
There wasn’t any discussion during the convention regarding Agenda 21 and only one sentence that directly refers to it in the RNC platform speech. “We strongly reject reject the UN Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of UN Global Tax.”
If he kills SMART meter funding then we’ll know he’s serious, if he doesn’t then we’ll know he’s not.
I would have thought that the RNC would have used stopping the Agenda 21 Program as a platform for freedom from world government but I was wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.