Is Mitt Romney too nice to get elected? And, if he is elected, is he too nice to be an effective president? I, and I suspect many others, learned from Mrs. Romney’s speech at the Republican convention what kind of person Mr. Romney really is. He is a devoted family man, he is a man of faith, and he is a kind and compassionate man. We see this compassion exhibited in his pledge to repeal but replace ObamaCare. This, I believe, is true compassion and is not the same as the “compassionate conservatism” that G. W. Bush purported to be. Nice is who Mitt Romney is. The question I have is: “Is that level of nicety an asset or a liability in this all important election?”
Monty Pelerin’s article One Election Away from Tragedy at American Thinker makes the case that for the very first time the claim that is made about every election that it is “the most important in history” is not hyperbole.
The United States of America is at an inflection point where this election will determine whether we continue to veer off-course or return to a conventional path. The issue is whether we reinvent this country in ways that have failed everywhere else in both place and time, or return to the traditions that have made America the envy of the world.
Pelerin is also worried that Romney may be too nice.
Romney seems to be a good and decent man, one that you might admire as a competent and fair boss. He does not convey the same commitment and intensity as his opponent. His apparent competency would certainly be welcome, but it is hardly sufficient. Even some Soviet bureaucrats were competent in accomplishing unproductive tasks. Competency in pursuit of wrong goals can be a liability rather than an asset.
And this is why Pelerin is worried.
The bases of the two parties are not equal in intensity. Many opponents of the president believe this election to be like those of the past. There are Obama-detesters who have come to stronger positions generally via two routes — 1) the man is incompetent and made things worse; or, 2) he is out to destroy what was America. This anti-Obama feeling is stronger than it was four years ago, although does not come close to matching the core of Democrat dependency voters. These voters view each election in terms of life and death (or living well versus living). This intense core far outnumbers the Obama-detesters.
Another good read at American Thinker is “While Obama Fields Softballs, Romney Plays Smallball“.
I am not as pessimistic as Pelerin about Romney’s chances of winning in November. The poor economy, the persistently high unemployment, and the high cost of gasoline and food may be enough to turn the voters away from Obama. Romney would then win by default. We can all live with that; but is that enough? If Romney wins by default, he will not have a filibuster proof Senate and may not even have a majority in the Senate. I do agree with Pelerin that our country is at an inflection point. For a Romney administration to turn things around, Romney and the Republicans need to have a mandate from the American people. They need to win by a landslide. They are not going to accomplish that with their “small ball” approach to this campaign.
Frankly, dear readers, I do not understand why Team Romney is not going on the offensive. It is not rocket science. And, Lord knows they have a mountain of ammunition to use against Obama, The most inept President in our life time, if not ever. This humble observer believes that the Romney campaign needs to do two things. First, they need to attack, attack, and attack Obama by being specific about what Obama has done since taking office and what the horrible results have been. That should be easy, right? Secondly, and more importantly, Romney and his team must articulate in terms anyone can understand exactly what his plans are to turn this economy around. One point by one point he needs to explain the changes he wants to make and why each change will help make American businesses more competitive and how that will mean more jobs and more prosperity for all Americans.
I do not think that “nice” has to be a liability. I don’t doubt for a moment that Romney has had to make some very tough decisions in his life; in his career. Maybe he made those decisions and then gave the task of implementing them to his right-hand men. That’s okay. But, the federal government is not a corporation. He will not be a CEO. He will have to deal with the co-equal branches of government. He will need people around him who know how to work with the members of the House and the Senate. I believe that Mitt Romney is smart enough to know that. But, Mr. Romney, you need to win by a landslide! You need a mandate! GO FOR IT, MAN! GO FOR IT! No more small ball, please!
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Infidel de Manahatta
September 18, 2012
Good and decent people should not go into politics. They just get in the way. And I believe Mitt has be be much nastier and shockingly ruthless in this campaign. He must throw mud atomic bombs at Lord Obama. Unfortunately the self-loathing Republican mainstream is telling him to be nice. Which is another reason why the Republican party must go.
Cheryl Pass
September 18, 2012
Wow…”Good and decent people should not go into politics?” “The just get in the way?”
If we are that far gone, we might as well give it up now. Let’s just let bad and nasty people go into politics…then no one will get in the way.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
I can always count on you to be positive and uplifting. I think you scared Cheryl.
Ronald J. Ward
September 18, 2012
Too nice?
While 47% may not pay federal income taxes, a great deal of that is circumstantial and
argumentative. Mitt’s tone suggests that this under tax (for them but not for corporations, which are people too, people that Mitt’s job does indeed require him to care for) is somewhat of a problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. Considering Mitt falls short on clear and decisive commitment to anything (unless someone of the moment wants him to which he can easily etch-a-scetch in the event someone else doesn’t want him to) it’s not hard to deduce they will indeed be taxed in order to offset for the those that Mitt cares for or likes. You know, people like him.
Mitt also falls short on his explanation of who these 47% that he cares nothing for are. It’s just somewhat disturbing that the guy’s going around blaming the President for dividing the country while he’s dismissing half as deadbeats as they are “the people who will vote for the president no matter what”. I just don’t think it sets well to be implying that disabled vets should be ashamed of themselves for having the audacity to think they’re entitled to not be starving in the streets that they fought to protect. That’s not who we are. We’re not Mitt Romneys. We have a condescending smirking Plutocrat stating the middle class are folks making around $250K while chastising teachers for complaining about their $70K salaries, all while denying us to see what kind of tax paying history he has. This is the arrogant non-caring hypocrite we’re dealing with.
Yes, Romney does indeed have a perception problem. The best thing he could do at this point is to just shut the hell up and hope for the best. He may as well as he continues to refuse to tell us anything about his agenda other than being a lapdog for corporate interest. That’s really not what a country trying to rise above the Bush ashes wants nor needs to hear.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
Hi Ronald. Trolls are welcome here as long they are civil and yyou were civil.
Mitt romney, by his nature, cares a great deal for the 47%. But, he is pragmatic enough to understand they have already made up their minds to vote for Obama because they know that Obama will fight to give them other people’s money. So, he will focus his campaign on those that have not made up their minds yet.
You don’t like corporations much, do you, Ronald? You would like to tax them even more because they are only interested in evil profits, right?
let’s talk about profits for a moment. Do you understand, Ronald, that profits are what is left over after a business has paid all of its costs, including all wages and salaries upto and including that of the CEO and after paying all local, state, and federal taxes. What is left is profit. Profit is used to pay dividends to the owners of the business. profits are used to invest in their businesses. profits aree sometimes saved for a rainy day. What about profits do you find so evil, Ronald?
Now let’s talk about corporate taxes in America. Do you know that they are the highest of any debeloped country in tthe world? Do you know that corporations don’t actually pay taxes. They are more like a taxx collector. The taxes they pay are built into the prices of the goods or services they produce and sell. You pay those taxes when you buy their goods and services. So, if corporate taxes were increased, you will pay them, Ronald, along with every other American consumer. Bt, it is even worse, Ronald. Corporate taxes and the cost of the good and the inane government regulations (which you pay for too, Ronald) make the price of their goods and services so high that it is difficult for them to compete with foreign producers from countries that don’t over tax and regulate their businesses. Sometimes this causes American companies to move their businesses to other countries ao that they can compete. This means your fellow Americans lose their jobs, Ronald.
So, Ronald, please be careful what you wish for. You may not like the result.
Ronald J. Ward
September 19, 2012
You seem to impute opinions of me that I don’t have or at least you have no way of knowing I have as I’ve never indicated disliking profits. But considering you took the time to respond and it’s your blog, I’ll respond to your off topic or (assuming I’m understanding the definition of troll correctly) perhaps “trolled” response.
I’m all for corporate profits, small business profits or individual profits and I have a fairly good understanding of what they are and how important they are to the economy. I’ll take it a step further and say that I fully endorse huge profits, record profits or even vast wealth that’s earned from a legitimate business. I really don’t know how you read otherwise in my writing.
I have to disagree with your analysis that corp taxes are the highest in the world as while 49 of the Fortune 500 companies paid NEGATIVE taxes, many, many paid between 1% to 2%. There’s also the reality that they are paying less taxes today than they have in 65 years while sitting on more liquid cash than ever in history. It should be evident by now that the 12 years of lower to zero to negative taxes has not produced jobs. We should be able to look at the cards on the table and read that the Bush tax cuts have proven to be an abject failure. Now please spare me the invoking of the confidence fairy as that just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There’s no way of ever providing ultimate confidence in the stock market, foreign trade, or economic ups and down and they were given a ten year window of low taxes, which was extended, in order to acquire these profits, which they did, which hasn’t worked. And if you want to assign blame to Democrats for taking office in 06, please point to a single piece of legislation passed by them to validate that claim. I’ve heard that argument many times but have yet to see evidence to support it.
But back to your question. I support profits but we seem to disagree on how they come in play on the economy. The GOP logic has been the trickle down theory- the more the top earners make and keep, along with more deregulation for them, the more they’re apt to stimulate the economy. In the mid 90s, I ran a business with an AGI of slightly over $100K, pretty good when the middle class workers enjoyed around $30K. I was nearing the payoff of a truck lease of about $1300 a month and was excited about that extra income. My tax adviser informed me that assuming my business stayed exactly the same, I could give myself around $300 a month raise as the rest would be taxed. So the only logical investment with my money was to buy or lease a new truck, which only enhanced my business while stimulating the economy. At the end of each year, we would crunch the numbers and go out and buy new computers, office furniture, or make other investments as we were in a “use it or lose it” tax situation. You see, when we spent, that money circulated throughout the community and fueled the economy. Let me say that if we were simply allowed to keep it without tax penalty, that’s exactly what we would have done. Do you catch my argument?
And from another perspective on tax and profits.Let’s say a Fortune 500 company builds a new factory in MyTown USA which does well and makes huge profits. And let’s say that with this success comes a need for infrastructure improvements such as widened roads, more lanes, maybe a bridge to accommodate this business. And let’s assume that this increased activity requires updates at the local fire department or perhaps the need for an additional patrol officer or such. The funds aren’t going to fall out of the sky and with Corporations not paying taxes anymore, how is it fair to demand Farmer Jones or the diner’s waitress to pay for it out of their profits? While there may be an argument that corp profits shouldn’t be seized to hand over to those not pulling their own weight, there’s certainly and argument that profitable corp should at least be pulling theirs. I mean, exactly to what degree does Mitt or you feel that tax breaks or deregulations need to be lowered?
Conservatives on Fire
September 19, 2012
Ronald, I am so pleased to learn that I misinteroreted your attitude on profits.
“I have to disagree with your analysis that corp taxes are the highest in the world as while 49 of the Fortune 500 companies paid NEGATIVE taxes, many, many paid between 1% to 2%. ”
That is true. The fact that big corporations, just like your business, take advantage of every tax deduction they are legally entitled to take; for example, loss carry forwards. General Motors (27% owned by the US government), for example, got an unusual approval from the IRS to carry forward $45 millions of loses that occured before their bankruptcy, doe not change the fact that the tax rate for corporations is 35% which is the hughest in the world. Also, Obama’s good friend and Jobs Czar, Jeffery Immelt, also happens to be CEO of GE who although showing profits of $5 billion in the US, did not pay one penny in taxes. I don’t like it but it is legal. Mitt Romney wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 25% and at the same time, eliminate the loopholes.
” Let me say that if we were simply allowed to keep it without tax penalty, that’s exactly what we would have done. Do you catch my argument?”
You reinvested money in your company to avoid paying more in taxes. That’s logical. That money enteredthe economy in a way that may not have been your preference if the government with their badge and a gun wasn’t demanding you pay more taxes. If you could have keep your money tax free, you would have spent it or invested it in ways you preferred and the money still would have entered the economy. Ronald, I am with you! Government needs to be smaller and therfore less demanding of taxes so that peole could spend their money the way they want ot instead of as the government wants to spend it. You sound like Ronald Reagan now.
“And let’s say that with this success comes a need for infrastructure improvements such as widened roads, more lanes, maybe a bridge to accommodate this business.”
If you take an isolated factory, you can make your argument. But, in society in general, all government services, including roads and bridges and police and fire protection are pay for with taxes. All taxes, Ronald, come from the only source of wealth generation there is; businesses. They pay taxes and they pay employess who inturn can pay taxes and government uses these taxes to pay for all the services they provide and, also, to pay their empoyees. Without the wealth generated by businesses; there would be no government services.
I am beginning to think that you and i are not all that far apart.
Adrienne
September 18, 2012
I’m waiting for the debates as well as getting closer to Nov. 6. I really don’t think the average person pays much attention until just before an election. Romney shouldn’t be “shooting his wad” too early or it will get lost in the shuffle…
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
Let’s hope that is the reason for the weak campaign so far. Are the American voters really that disengaged, Adrienne?
bunkerville
September 18, 2012
He has had all week to bear down on Libya. He got critized now backed away. I will wait for the debate. Period.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
It seems to m that if he doesn’t come out swinging soon, his is going to lose on points; to use a boxing analogy.
lou222
September 18, 2012
Yes he is nice, if he was playing with a “normal” person it might not matter. That he is playing with liars and extreme left wing nuts, it could be a big negative. He knows that, he is a smart man, what he does with that information is up to him, I am hoping he will react when he needs to. We have seen what “nice” does after the McCain mess, doesn’t work when you are dealing with a Chicago thug and his accomplices. The Republican Party thinks this is a “Business as usual” election, it is not! We are one vote away from seeing our country being taken down to a third world level. This is the plan and this is well on its’ way at this time. People need to take out all the stops on what they have to say and stop worrying about offending someone. There will always be somneone that will take offense, they can just get over it. The big boys need to step in and take over, let the easily offended sit this one out.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
Even good guys need a killer instinct to finish off the bad guy. I agree, Linda. It is time for the big boys to show their stuff.
Kurt Silverfiddle
September 18, 2012
The odd (and the news media) are against a Romney victory. Why doesn’t he slash and burn Obama the way he did his GOP rivals in the primaries?
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
He did show more spirit during the primaries than he is now. i hope this is his rope a dope strategy and he is saving his knock-out punch for the right time.
john galt - America's Chronicle
September 18, 2012
Yes, the man is nice; but he is also smart.
I think there is too much gloom at the present because he is not ahead. But to be at par with an incumbent demagogue president who uses our money to buy voters is pretty good in any measure. He is also at par with an incumbent demagogue press.
I believe his campaign people know every minus discussed here and that they are just timing the thing right. To win a close election it is all about intensity from your side and about timing. We have the intensity in our favor, they now have to get the timing right.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
I do so hope you are right, John. I feel like we are in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowel; we are behind three points, the two minute warning has been called, we are on our own twenty yardline and we need a touch-down to win. So, Romney and friends better have a great two minute game plan!
Steve Dennis
September 18, 2012
I am seeing my biggest concern about Mitt Romney come true before my eyes. I have feared that he wouldn’t be tough enough to take on Barack Obama and it is beginning to look like this is the case. He came out tough against Obama’s reaction to the embassy attack and then backed down when the media criticized him and now he might be doing the same with the 47% comment. He just doesn’t seem to have what it takes to do what it will take to beat Obama.
lou222
September 18, 2012
There are alot of important people backing him, let’s hope they are also giving him advice. I think he has it in him, it might just be that he doesn’t want to come out swinging too far ahead and then die out…remember what Gov.Rick Perry did from Texas during the debates, he was larger than life and it died out quickly. You would not want to show everything in your hand up front, would you? Maybe he is holding some good cards, Steve….have faith, my friend.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
I hear you, Steve. Like i said to John Galt, I hope Team Romney has a great two-minute game plan!
Cheryl Pass
September 18, 2012
Jim…it seems to me that Romney is having to walk a tight-rope. Steve, above is right….just as soon as Romney spoke out on the embassy attack, the media went into kill mode. And the same with the 47% remark. You can’t play that game with media…you have to just laugh at them. Their credibility is dead anyway…especially after promoting that video as the reason for embassy attacks. What a freaking joke that is.
Romney had said what people with normal brains know, but the leftists don’t want said aloud. If he wants to win, he needs to keep telling the truth and exposing the lies of the O and his minions. It isn’t a matter of being too nice really. It is matter of speaking truth and crushing the lies. Nice doesn’t mean you just let people lie and get away with it. Nice actually would be the opposite of that…saving people from lies. He may have to summon some righteous indignation. !!! That would be an appropriate and a true reflection of the Americans out here who are fed up. That would result in a landslide…but we’ll see what happens.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
In my opinion, Cheryl, Romney needs to ignore what the Left Stream Media is saying and stay focused on his game plan and go on the offensive, soon!
lou222
September 18, 2012
The problem is, that is ALL that is being reported on the news, Obama ahead by such and such amount, Romney behind by such and such amount, Obama is good, Romney is bad, Democrats are good, Republicans are bad, etc, etc, etc. After a certain amount of time, if it is drilled in over and over, most people will believe it. Then there is US! We are skeptical of everything, “they” say that is not such a bad thing. Did you ever think you would hear that thinking for yourself and educating yourself would be a BAD thing? This has been the dumbing down of American and it did not just happen with Obama, wish I could say it was. We have allowed “them” to take over and run the show, we put them in office, pay their salaries and they put more and more rules and regulations into play and WE have to abide by them. I think it is US that need to do some changing, they are only a “symptom” of the problem. Am I making any sense? Cheryl, I read an article: http://hillbuzz.org/big-chicago-mystery-what-bar-did-muslim-adel-daoud-try-to-blow-up-downtown-last-week-updated-looks-like-it-was-cals-at-400-s-wells-near-sears-tower-83956#more-44748
It might help us understand what Romney’s plan might be for the future.
lou222
September 18, 2012
Ok, it seems that the copy paste doesn’t remove the last thing I copied and pasted. I apologize, but that is a good article as well, I already posted it. Here is the one that I wanted you to look at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-october-surprise-is-going-to-be-legendary-2012-9
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
Well, that sounds very positive. It sounds like John Galt may be right. I hope so!
lou222
September 18, 2012
Ditto!
john galt - America's Chronicle
September 18, 2012
And there is still more money for Romney that was not counted in the totals of the Business Insider table. The owner of the Chicago Cubs, Joe Ricketts, is putting $18 million by himself, which is not counted in the super-pac’s, to expend in his own pro-Romney campaign.
That is the reason why Obama made much of going to the Chicago White Sox game. I love it!
Freedom, by the way
September 18, 2012
If the idiots of America (and I don’t mean the drooling leftists who would rather lie on a bed of nails than vote for a Republican–but the other Obama voters) would just turn off the TV and look at their checkbook, try to buy a week’s worth of groceries without SNAP and fill up their tank with their own cash and then see what’s leftover to pay their own cell phone bill, they would be plenty MAD that a $1.00 today wasn’t what it was in 2008. The old saying is that people vote with their wallet. But if you’re picking Uncle Sam’s wallet for necesseties, the view isn’t quite so bad, and you’re voting to keep your Uncle’s wallet nice and fat, no matter who has to be robbed.
What Romney said is no big revelation to anyone. What is disgusting is that so-called “journalists” have made facts something horrible (but it could be that as a class of people they have forgotten how to deal in facts) and a so-called “informed” electorate may actually be stupid enough to believe it.
If we’re voing on character, Romeny wins. If we’re voting on the economy, Romney wins. If we’re voting on energy, Romney wins.
Is Romney a “nice” guy? Perhaps. But this time, if Obama wins it will not be because Romney was too nice. It will be because Americans are too stupid to see what’s happening right in front of them.
lou222
September 18, 2012
If the media can keep the little people focused on what that big bad Romney said, they won’t have to explain what the real issues are. The things they are hitting Romney with are so superficial, it is pitiful. We can’t make people open their eyes, but we will at least give it our best shot, what happens after that, at least we know we tired.
Freedom, by the way
September 18, 2012
What you say is true. The media is playing diversions for the Obama campaign. But you know something? That makes me truly sad that so much of our “reporters” today have lost all interest in really informing people of the news. It’s a profession that will soon be down there with an approval rating like congress or used car salesmen (my apologies to any car sales people in the audience–you are much more trustworthy today than ever before–and much more so that journalists). It’s little wonder that Fox is so popular. Even they have a viewpoint and are not completely unbiased but they are light years ahead of the rest.
Is the lack of journalistic integrity just a byproduct of a lack of integrity in general? I suppose it is.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
In my day, ancient history, journalist were not graduates of any school of journalis, They were people whowritte well and they didn’t trust any government or politician; Democrat or Republican.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
I am betting and hoping that people wikk stikk vote thier wallets. The problem xould be that people remember the disaster at the end of the Bush administratio; they don’t even try to understand why the collapse happened _ they only know that with Bush, a Republican, the economy collapsed. And, they may look at Obama and say its not great but the economy appears better. That is our risk, as I see it.
lou222
September 18, 2012
I bet, Jim in “our” day, those said journalists were not paid off. I have to wonder about most, not all, that are in that profession now. Is it the highest bidder gets the best positive coverage? As to your comment about our risk, we can’t help what other people think, they are adults, they can form their own opinions. Well, unless they are on the dole, then they vote as they are told. Let us hope that there are those out there that will at least think for themselves and have a bit of self respect.
john galt - America's Chronicle
September 18, 2012
Well said, “Freedom, by the way”.
KingShamus
September 18, 2012
“But, Mr. Romney, you need to win by a landslide! You need a mandate! GO FOR IT, MAN! GO FOR IT! No more small ball, please!”
Go big or go home, Mitt. America needs to make a decision, right here and right now. Are we citizens or statists? Romney can win with 50.00000001%, but there will be no mandate for needed reforms. So, we’ll just kick the can down the road some more and muddle our way right over the edge of the cliff.
That’s not freakin’ good.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
KS, commentor lou222 left this link to an article that claims Romney is going to have fantastic October surprise for Obama. they claim Romney will have so much more money to spend tham obama that he blanket the swing states with his ads and he will defeat Obamaaa. We will see.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-october-surprise-is-going-to-be-legendary-2012-9
LD Jackson
September 18, 2012
To be sure, Mitt Romney can not continue the kind of campaign he has ran in the last couple of weeks and expect to win the election. What he said about the attacks on our embassies was correct, but he was beaten into silence by a media who has no intention of allowing anything he says or does to be a positive. Even with the ammunition that is available to him, he has a very tall mountain to climb.
lou222
September 18, 2012
Appears to me that “someone” is being paid under the table to take sides, wonder who it might be? Mitt Romney needs to stand firm on what he says, of course it will be attacked, he just needs to weather it.
Conservatives on Fire
September 18, 2012
It is an uphill battle but he has the bad economy working in his favor. He needs to stay focused and not let the left stream media control his story.
edge of the sandbox
September 19, 2012
I’m not sure. One doesn’t become a millionaire by playing softball. I would like to believe he has some sort of a master plan.