Skip to comments.Maximizing Mitt
Posted on 03/21/2009 10:45:23 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Today there is a complete lack of adult economic leadership in Washington. President Obamas agenda on health care, higher education, and climate change is diverting his attention from the economy. Congressional Republicans are proposing austerity-oriented spending freezes and railing against big bank bailouts instead of articulating a pro-growth message and policy agenda.
The GOP and the country needs Gov. Mitt Romneys voice front and center in the economic debate. His private-sector experience as a chief executive officer, his record as a turnaround artist, and his expertise on economic and financial matters are head and shoulders above those of any current Republican or Democratic political figure.
Here are some more of the benefits Romney could bring:
Governor Romney is ahead of the curve in terms of modernizing our economic message. For instance, on regulation, Romney says: Republicans believe in regulation. You cant have a free market with people stealing intellectual property from one another, with monopolies being formed, we believe in law and regulation that sets rules for markets. . . . Do we need new regulations? Absolutely. Should regulators be looking at the market in a different way than they did 25 years ago? Certainly.
Romney has demonstrated his ability to craft innovative policy solutions. Last year, he put forth a proposal to create a public-private cooperative that would receive troubled bank assets, then renegotiate loans to homeowners and businesses to keep them performing. The income from the performing loans would then go to the owners of the troubled assets, thereby allowing them to recoup some of their losses.
Romney has raised some legitimate concerns about the efficacy of mark to market accounting, the inside-the-Beltway think tanks favorite cure-all for the banking crisis. He said, I do believe you need to somewhere recognize if you have a toxic asset and present that to stakeholders. Japan took the other route . . . and we have learned from that experience that if you try and hide the extent of the problem, you may not be willing to deal with it.
As a Michigan-born son of an auto executive, Romney is uniquely positioned to address the economic fallout that is occurring in the Industrial Midwest. Romney has been a trendsetter in calling for investment in new technologies that will modernize and preserve an industrial base in the country. The GOP has been hemorrhaging support in the Industrial Midwest because its leaders are tone deaf on the economic anxieties of blue- and white-collar workers in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.
Romney can be a credible voice on the intersection of education and economic competitiveness. He is well versed in the economic challenges presented to our country by a rising China. Romney and the Republican party should lead a national call to bolster our teaching of math and science. This is crucial issue to our long-term competitiveness.
Looking backward, it should have been Romney, not Gov. Bobby Jindal, offering the official GOP response to President Obamas address. And going forward, Romney should be the GOPs go-to economic spokesman for media interviews. He ought to give a series of speeches on how to turn around the economy. He should lead an economic task force made of elder statesmen, prominent business executives, global-finance experts, and Nobel Prize winning economists to develop economic policy solutions, with a focus on fixing the banking system.
In the presidential primaries, Mitt Romneys PowerPoint presentations did not connect to average Americans. But with the economy and stock market collapsing, he could find a much more receptive audience.
Cesar Conda is a founding principal of Navigators Global. He was a domestic-policy adviser to former vice president Cheney and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
He was a huge proponent of Bush’s $750B stiulous plan back in September.
Must be a Massachusetts thing, he was for it before he was against it.
But, but, but, he has nice hair.
Let me guess, you’re a Mormon, aren’t you?
LOL. Romney is the GOP’s John Kerry... after all, Romney was for bailouts before he was against them.
Why do you like Sanford?
He was against removing Saddam, he is against using force preemptively (in other words he’d only fight AFTER we are attacked with WMD), he is a global warming hysteric and called everyone who wants Obama to fail “idiots”.
He may be Conservative on many issues, but his foreign policy stances are dangerous as is his climate change cultism. I won’t even mention that calling the Conservative base “idiots” isn’t exactly political gold.
Me either.... I'm not the only one already halfway out the door. If the GOP starts to rally around that Romney liar, it's lights out.
I like Mike Pence, but I don’t know if he would want the job on top of seeing his family get dragged through the mud.
I've come to the conclusion (hardly an original thought on my part) that I'm tried of "issue" and "policy" candidates. Those guys invariably get swallowed up in DC, trying to please the MSM and the inside the beltway crowd. We need someone who feels conservatism in his (or her) gut.
Sanford? I'm warming up to him. I already like Palin...
That a fact? I'll check it out, and if you're right...,
Sanford and Globull warming:
Mitt Romney shoulld be our President at this point time.
He should win a primary first.
I like Mitt, too, but he's a hasbeen, as far as presidents go. I liked him and Thompson, but neither got far. I hated McCain. As for Sanford, I don't know enough about him, I guess, but what I do know, I like.
I was with Sanford against intervening in Kosovo, why did we put American troops out there to die for Muslims in Europe? I was also against giving carte blanche for regime change in 1998 or whenever it was that Sanford opposed attacking Saddam. I like that he compares the US educational system to a Soviet System and things like that. He’s a conservative. Which, by the way, means you don’t want to trot our troops around the world solving other countries problems at our expense in blood and treasure.
See post 31 on Sanford following the global warming cult and read up on Sanfords stances on defense and foreign policy. He is Ron Paul redux.
Have you see the video of him calling those who want Obama to fail (referring to Rush) as “idiots”?
I cannot support someone like that.
So by his and your comments I understand that we should let folks like Saddam or Khamenei subvert, invade and conquer other countries, fund terrorists who kill our citizens and develop nukes and chemical weapons and threaten us and or allies. But genius Sanford would only act AFTER they hit us.
We can really do without that kind of CinC.
He not only wouldn't take out their WMD capabilites, but also reject non-violent means to foil these regimes. I don't want us to police the world... but I sure as heck want anyone who wants to destroy and blackmail us foiled.
So we should have invaded Iraq in 1998 and you supported sending our troops to aid the muslims in Kosovo? That seems to be what you are saying when I peel the sarcasm away. Post the comment in full contecxt that you are talking about with Sanford if you actually have it.
No, I’m not a Mormon. I don’t practice any particular religion. I have my own beliefs.
Let me guess you are a Evangelical Christian.
Maybe you are the troll?