no you're not, the job of the president is to enforce laws, and national security, not create returns sure they do, but the deals they negotiate aren't the same. they're negotiating business deal, they're negotiating prices, costs a president is negotiating people's livelyhoods and a ceo always has the option to sale assets, reduce workforce, etc. what options do a president have like that? a president is responsible for his citizens as long as they choose to be, a CEO can just cut ties
I don't think it mattered, Romney had to lay out the difference between him and McCain. He wasn't well known to a lot of the voting population. At least he didn't lie in his ads like McCain. Oh well, no point arguing over this anymore, I am sure Mitt will do ok even after this loss.
i have to agree, unfortunately it is a bit of a popularity contest but that also speaks to lack of support from the party. he's got to get help getting his name out. lastly I think where he personally is a fault here is he really has no identity. its like my boss said, he could only win states he lived in, mass, utah, and mich, if we gave him eight more years, and he lived in one state a year, he could make some real noise.
A couple of things here. Romney had an enormous financial advantage. He focused on two states - Iowa and NH - for a year. They knew him as well as anyone, and neither state picked him. Huckabee was able to get his message out - without going crazy negative and pissing everyone off - with a budget of $2 million. That suggests that Romney didn't allocate his resources well or something else went wrong. As for his ads lying, FactCheck.org disagrees: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html Romney falsely denied that an attack ad called McCain’s immigration bill "amnesty," though it does. One of his Web ads also attacks McCain for supporting "amnesty." He conceded during the debate that McCain’s bill "technically" isn’t amnesty. Romney was also the most frequent member of the FactCheck.org corrections department on the GOP side. In the most recent debate in California, he was the target of 4 out of the 6 things factcheck mentioned: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/simi_valley_showdown.html Combined with his constantly shift positions and pandering, he basically came across as untrustworthy. Not a good quality to have as President, let alone before you're even the nominee.
Point #1: The president is trying to create returns in terms of lifestyle to American Citizens. He is elected to make the country stronger, and to make the lives better. A CEO is hired (by directors made up of voting shareholders) to make a company stronger and provide returns to shareholders. A CEO like a president must abide by the corporate / constitutional guidelines in place. Point #2: A President is negotiating people's livelyhoods? Americans livelyhoods are determined by free trade agreements, international negotiations regarding conflict and virtually everything else. The president is the figurehead of the country and his policy starts at the top and goes down, just as a ceo though both must abide by a system of checks and balances (board of directors/ congress and senate). A CEO has negotiated with powerful leaders of organizations and had to comprimise and those decisions affected the lives of Americans, their jobs and their lives. Point #3: The president does have the ability to "sell assets" or get rid of burdensome programs or spending that does little to benefit the lives of Americans. To think that a president can't sell assets and get rid of spending and/or programs is foolish. They can also reduce the government workforce as well. The president must be accountable to the voters, not the government workers of the US, just as a CEO must be accountable to shareholders and not company workers. A president is responsible for his citizens for as long as he wants to be? Ever heard of a recall election or an impeachment? A president has time limits, unlike a CEO, but CEO's tend to be in power longer. I'm not saying Mitt Romney is perfect or anything, i'm just saying someone that has run a large organization has better experience that forced efficiency and has had success trimming the fat, and creating a more powerful company has experience that is better than most to running a country. Imagine Jack Welch running GE with over 300,000 employees and businesses as diverse as NBC, GE Healthcare to GE Financial. He has to be able to put strong leaders in place that can manage their areas and report it all back upstairs efficiently. Welch must be able to manage this huge organization, while not drowning in the details. That versus Barack Obama (just an example) or John Edwards that worked as attorneys representing a company or some people on a specific issue at a time. Them going into managing the largest organization in the world because of their charm and ideas is just silly, because the ability to implement and create success and change in this type of huge setting is not something you can learn on the job.
exactly and your first mistake is equating growing profits to making happiness. Profits are grown through innovation, the only thing in common is leadership and vision, the actual jobs are entirely different american's livelyhoods are determined by a lot more than our economy. are our streets safe. is our infrastructure sound. are our schools up to speed. there are parallels but they are different. a president can't just get rid of assets. their are whole cities in this country that are dying. Can the president just sell detroit to canada. no, the country is stuck with these cities or states or whatever and the only solution is to figure out how to improve them. you misunderstood, a president can't just fire its citizens the goal of these organizations is to do one thing, create income. george bush's biggest problem is putting people in charge of agencies (FEMA) who have no idea how to deal with the unique situations these organizations are set up for. what kind of business plan is analogous to running a government? that's where the analogy falls apart. the government is responsible for many different things, defense, education, infrastructure, all of these things that are not related. An organization like GE or Ford or GM or Microsoft, has one goal, sell a product.
It would occur to me that the guy who blows tens of millyens of his own powder with nothing to show for it in the end - in fact even less than Huckabee who's been working off a wal-mart budget - is not all that great a financial wizard to say the least.
Romney got bad deal cause Washington outsider and sadly religion. Time had good piece on all candidates working together against him. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1709507,00.html
Are you kidding me. He made more money on his own than you can ever imagine, if he is no financial wizard, would that make you a complete idiot? I applaud someone who will invest his own money and time try to accomplish something great, win or lose.
Bill Maher said watching Giuliani and Romney debate was like watching a halloween costume argue with a mannequin. I thought that was funny.
I applaud him using his own money as well as his time. I am not judging whether he has good or bad intentions. I am commenting on his financial sense. Making money is one thing. Keeping it is another. And futhermore, don't automatically assume everyone on this board is less well off than the little Romney's of the world. I don't assume anything about you other than that you are a fellow Rockets fan.
I think this is terrible spin by the Romney camp. Here's the relevant part: "Him," of course, is Mitt Romney, the candidate who seems to be uniting his Republican rivals almost as much as Hillary Clinton. "The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns. While sharp words have been exchanged between practically every Republican candidate at one point or another on the campaign trail, the aversion to Romney seems to go beyond mere policy disagreements. It's also a suspicion of what they see is his hypocrisy and essential phoniness — what one former staffer for Fred Thompson called Romney's "wholesale reinvention." The Romney campaign doesn't pretend the sour attitude toward its candidate doesn't exist. But chief counselor Ben Ginsberg insists— echoing one of the campaign's main themes — the attitude stems largely from the fact that Romney is "the outsider candidate. He's not from Washington and he's going to change Washington. He's not part of their club." Couple of things: 1. Guiliani and Huckabee are not Washington insiders. Thompson sort of is, but not really. And half of Washington Republicans can't stand McCain. 2. This personal issue with Romney didn't exist until Iowa/NH when Romney went on the attack. This is a problem of his own creation due to his own behavior on the campaign trail. He went negative/ugly in a year where going negative/ugly has really backfired pretty badly.
I am saying his financial sense isn't related to his campaign performance. And I didn't assume everyone on this board, I assumed you made less money than Romney.
1) For an entire year, he burned a signifcant chunk of his $$$ in Iowa/NH with nothing to show for it. You can attribute whatever reasons/excuses you want to for his failures there. In the final analysis, concentrating on these 2 states turned out to be a very poor allocation of his resources. 2) I see your knowledge about cash is rather limited. Real money is never 'made' as you assume. It is only stolen or inherited. And unfortunately for Romney, he hasn't stolen enough yet to be throwing away so much and still be considered a Player at the end of the day. To give you comparison, he has probably only 1/50 the equity of H. Ross Perot.
I'm freaking thrilled. To me, Romney offered only four more years of George Bush; a hollow shill mindlessly mimicking the talking points prepared by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the Big Money players of the RNC. Bush was plucked from the ceremonial governorship of Texas to be the public face because he was dumb enough to say whatever they told him, and Romney was their default choice this time because he was narcissistic enough to change his position to whatever would please them. This is a serious pivot point in American politics! But I'm not naive enough to think the same forces of civil repression and corporate profits won't be back spending and spinning the day after the 09 inauguration. Plus, with a war they botched and a budget they mortgaged for generations, they will be able pass along the blame and rail against failures as if they were never involved.
Right, stolen, I am sure Gates' money was stolen as well. 1/50 of the equity is still many times more than you will ever see, what's your point.
LOL, now we are pretending to be filth rich on internet? You know this is a basketball board right? Oh wait, maybe you are Les Alexander, did you rush back from the game just to post this?
The funny thing is that you actually think Romney and Alexander are "filth" rich. I guess everything is relative, indeed.
