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.
Heh - and then in response the Dims would pull out the record of his cheerleading for the stimulus package.
The worse people feel about the economy, the more it helps Romney IMO. The Dems and MSM will paint him a a Greedy Wall Street guy who helped CAUSE the problem in the first place. He would have lost last year because of that, however, if the economy is still in the tank, or even worse, people might not buy that.
Of course, Obama could be Jimmy Carter and completely dead politically by then and the GOP primaries might go down differently.
By 2012 I suspect most people on the right would vote for a box of Cheezits if it would mean getting rid of Obama....and crawl over 15 fire ant mounds to do it.
I share your pine.
Romney is light years ahead of Obama and the dimocRATS. Unfortunately there are to many people on our side that have their own agenda and that is well demonstrated on this website by the continued Mitt bashing.
Ron Paul is a much better economist than Mitt.
The best thing the republicans can do for the party is to forget everyone who has ran in the past. I’m iffy about Palin. I like her, but the media ruined her for the presidency. Maybe she can prove herself the next couple years.
Romney is cetainly correct about Republicans allowing Democrats to frame them as “anti-regulation”. That is not, and never has been the case. Republicans need to get ahead ofthisby arging for efective, pro-growth regultion, while continuing to reduce anti-growth (vis our competitors) regultion (e.g the Sarbanes-Oxley fiasco, etc.).
Mitt is another big government Republican. Useless to waste a vote on him. Big Government Republican’s just provide filler between leftists and discredit the conservative movement by claiming to be conservative.
I like Sanford.
Sorry, I meant bail-out, not stimulus...
Before y’all sing praises to Mitt.
Come on over to MA and see the disaster known as socialized medicine.
Another self described “compasionate conservative”. No thanks, I’ve already seen what eight years of that did to my party.
Mitt? Mr. Socialized Medicine himself??
I won’t be voting for likes of Mitt Romney.
We have time for a leader to emerge.
So do I. There are others out there, but they don't want to be part of the mess in Washington.
Why are you still here troll?
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?
Where did I say we should have invaded Iraq in 1998? The issue then was whether we should through various means pursue ultimately regime change. Matter of factly I think we should have removed him in 1991 already. Stop making things up.
And where the HECK did I mention Kosovo here? Matter of factly I repeatedly said that the Balkans are not our issue.
Sanford said his principles are a) no force unless after we are attacked and b) no regime change ever, even through nonviolent means. He is a surrender monkey, and you try to desperately spin my words to fit your argument.
BTW it’s funny how you think that mentioning “Muslim” makes your case about Kosovo more meaningful. So you think “policing the world” is okay if it does not involve Muslims? Make you stance clear, and stop meandering.
Silly me... but I think that might be trolling.
So you don’t have a link with Sanford’s remarks in context, just an opinion. And yes, I think it makes a difference that we were supporting Muslim terrorists in Europe that were beheading Christians in the 90’s and got stampeded into supporting our government’s military action by a press that didn’t report honestly. Nobody has talked about it much becomes the Dems wanted to support Clinton and the neocons want to run around the world using our troops for the greater glory . . . but it was a damn dumb and wasteful policy and Sanford was against it. Make fun of it if you want but he was right.
Have you reading problems or do you have to resort to lying? Pretty please my dear, show me where I mentioned, much less "made fun" of Sanford's stance on Kosovo. Come on... show me. I critisized his stance on IRAQ and his PRINCIPLE of rejecting regime change and preemptiv force. I was not talking about Kosovo, not at least because I AGREE that the Balkans are not our vital interest. The Persian Gulf region however IS.
Thanks, everybody should watch that youtube clip of Sanford. Regarding Iraq, the vote against regime chage was in 1998 while Clinton was President. Don’t let your support of Palin blind you to other good Republican’s in the field, especially this far away from the primaries.
Are they talking about his image, or his hair with that headline? 'Cause Mitt does have awesome hair, and I think we can all see why he'd like to maximize it. Wonder if he has developed a comprehensive national policy on Mousse versus Hairspray yet? Pompadour versus Close-cut? He's probably waiting to see the polling numbers before he commits one way or the other.
If they're talking about his image, a vision of a weather vane comes to mind, pointing whichever way the current wind blows. Maybe he can make an ad about it, like the one he made about the evils of porn, a few months before he went skipping back to Marriott, one of the largest distributors of porn in the US through in-room movies.¹
Details about the author of this Ode to Mittens on a Warm Spring Day, FTA: 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.
When a candidate needs endless propaganda and propping up by friends and former employees this far from the next election, it says a lot.
None of it good.
FYA:Looking backward, it should have been Romney, not Gov. Bobby Jindal, offering the official GOP response to President Obamas address.
When a candidate needs to tear down a sitting governor for his own aggrandizement, it says a lot.²
None of it good.
When a candidate needs manufactured exposure, rather than doing something lasting and positive behind the scenes, it says a lot.
None of it good.
¹ While I don't care much one way or the other about what adults do pornography-wise; like many Americans, I find hypocrites and people who care only when expedient highly distasteful. The latest go-round with Marriott just solidifies the widely-held picture that Romney seems willing to say anything to raise his popularity.
² I'm not really a Jindal supporter, at least not yet.
Yeah, but he'll be for them again just as soon as the focus groups say he should be.
I won’t support someone who calls me “idiot” for wanting Obama to fail. I won’t support someone who won’t fight our enemies. I won’t support someone who supports the Global Warming scam. I therefore won’t support Sanford.
I would however be interested in your take on his stance on global warming? Do you also believe the nonsense he talked about “man causing” global warming?
You are awfully extreme in your opinions based on something Rush said he “heard” but wasn’t sure about . . . once again no quotation or anything. Lots of stuff being “heard” without support . . .