(4 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...Romney Emerges From Michigan; Chicken In Every Pot Speech Works
Mitt emerged from his home state of Michigan with a 9 point margin. His victory seems to come from his willingness to tell every voters exactly what they wanted to hear and his “enterprise” experience.
Mitt stopped short of promising that under a Romney administration every car that the government uses would be made in Michigan; however, he begged the voters to hear his plea by accepting 20 billion dollars in tax payer money (to be directed at research for the auto industry). He also wants to eliminate those pesky CAFE standards that regulate efficiency, which He believes have damaged the industry’s competitive edge.
He attributed his victory to “a sense of optimism that our campaign brought over the Washington-style pessimism that seems to permeate from Washington.” (CNN), but in all reality he put everything he had into Michigan, where as if he lost, there would be little point in continuing his onging farce that he is a sincere and electable candidate.
Before leaving the subject of Mitt, I would like to point out something about his “enterprise” experience that contrasts with Mike Bloomberg. Mitt inherited his wealth from his father who was also the governor of Michigan and formerly ran for President. Mike Bloomberg’s father never made of $11,000 a year. Mike Bloomberg had the grit, determination, and intelligence to achieve the American Dream, while maintaining his integrity. If you want that sort of person in the White House I ask that you sign the Petition to Draft Mike Bloomberg For President.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Romney’s speech truly was deplorable, and certainly didn’t sound like a fiscal conservative, but I’m not sure I buy the distinction between Mitt and Bloomberg’s upbringings.
Romney’s parents didn’t die until ‘95 and ‘98, and were in pretty good health up until at least ‘94, all well after Romney’s “enterprising” experience, so the idea that he inherited any more wealth that Bloomberg is a stretch. Both of them came from wealthy enough families to send them to Harvard (after BYU for Romney, and Johns Hopkins for Bloomberg,) so I really don’t see distinctions there.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Compare Romney’s Soviet-style economic approach to Detroit to Arnold’s. Romney says the federal government will provide stimulus, direction and uber-orientation to Detroit. Arnold’s approach is in the spirit of free enterprise. He says directly to Detroit: Fix the cars or we’ll buy Japanese cars. Romney’s father was President of American Motors from 1954 to 1962, the age of the clunker and Romney’s Nash Rambler led the way.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Mike really needs to run, he makes Mitt’s claim of economic experience laughable.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:18 am
@ Gadfly - while Mike did go to Harvard for an MBA as well as Johns Hopkins, he also paid for it by working as a parking lot attendant and doing other menial labor.
Mitt however, came from one of the most prestigious families in the Mormon church. He was brought into wealth, whereas Mike actually earned it.
The distinction holds.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Andrew, took the words right out of my mouth. http://www.mikebloomberg.com/en/about_mike_bloomberg
January 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am
When Mitt was campaigning last week he painted a “Detroit boy” image in an interview with CBS’ Katie Couric. The real facts, however are quite different (from DailyKOS):
“Mitt Romney may have been born in Detroit, but his Motor City biography ends there. As I detailed last week, Romney was raised in a life of comfort and privileged in the very wealthy suburb of Bloomfield Hills. Detroit may have been just miles away, but for all intents and purposes, it was on the other side of the moon. In median lily-white Bloomfield Hills, median household income is more than five times greater than Detroit and the median home value ten times higher.
With one apparent exception, you’d never know Romney came not from the mean streets of Detroit, but instead the town which calls itself the home of the Bloomfield Open Hunt Club and the training site for the Michigan Olympic Equestrian Team.”
Fake. Fake. Fake.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Again, I’m not here to support Mitt, I like what you all are doing here, but it seems to me like you are in danger of slipping into the kind of personal attacks and partisanship that you are trying to transcend.
Whether you paid for college at one of the more expensive schools in the country by taking loans and working in the summer, like Bloomberg, or at one of the least expensive Universities in the country, by adhering to the Mormon faith, and going on mission in France makes no difference. Both men have been rightly lauded for their “enterprise” experience since then, and that has little to do with their upbringing outside of the fact that both men were raised by strong, competent families, and were able to seize the opportunities that they received. Your first three paragraphs were dead-on, and didn’t need the last dragging them into the politics of smear tactics. Keep up the good work!
January 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Your point is well taken. However, please keep in mind the concept behind the fourth paragraph. It is not smear.
What is your definition of success? One valuable measure of success is the one that values the obstacles that one has had to overcome in order to accomplish what one has. That particular measure of success says a lot about the character of that successful person. Americans are looking for just that quality in a President.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The whole thing on Romney’s statements reminds me of an excellent Bob samuelson Op-Ed read in the Post yesterday that typifies not only Romney but many other Politicians and players (i.e. lobbyists) lining up here along Gucci Gulch and beyond:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011502864.html
Samuelson ends it by saying
“In an election year, politicians inevitably try to show their sensitivity to voters’ economic worries. A slowing economy does suggest a few common-sense and responsible steps: for instance, lengthening unemployment benefits from the standard 26 weeks to 39 weeks. But a big exercise in pump-priming, which is all that a “stimulus” package is, would be justified only if the economy deteriorated considerably more.”
“It’s not possible, or desirable, to correct every twist in the business cycle. The great danger of a stimulus package is that once proposed in a modest lollipop form, it would quickly be expanded to include many other tax breaks and spending increases, the fiscal equivalents of candy bars and peppermint sticks. This would bloat its costs and confuse the public about the long-term budget problem, which is, not surprisingly, just the opposite: to control the huge spending increases of baby boomers’ retirement.”
People are lining up at the trough folks and ready to feed!!
January 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Phil: Again, I don’t want to schill for Romney here, there is nothing that could happen that could make me vote for Mitt, but I am also someone who feels that politics focuses too much on personal attributes and not enough on the issues.
Bloomberg certainly overcame obstacles, as has every other candidate, Mitt’s mormon/conservative background working for compromise in MA certainly shouldn’t be overlooked, but we shouldn’t try to make these obstacles appear as daunting as the very real ones that face so many Americans daily. The privilege of one’s upbringing has a lot more to do with strength of family than it does with size of bank account, and in that case both guys appear to have had big advantages over many young people in America today, and I wouldn’t hold that against either of them. Now as for Mitt Romney’s “tell em everything they want to hear” and “promise them everything” politics, by all means have at him!