He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders. In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship....I ♥ Mitt Romney.
In his second term, President Clinton made an effort to govern more from the center than from the extreme wing of his party, and by doing so, found greater support and greater political success. Perhaps it's a paradox, the less political the agenda, the more political success one enjoys. But now is not the time for partisanship opportunism.
The unions have helped Barack Obama. They will hope to be paid back. I'm particularly concerned that organized labor would call on Barack Obama to pass the card check program. This removes from American workers the right to the secret ballot in deciding whether or not to accept a union. This legislation would do more to harm America's long-term competitiveness than almost anything I can imagine. It would be a partisan payback for organized labor but it would come with devastating consequences for the nation.
IN THE COMMENTS: Hdhouse said:
I just love this. It is so full of hypocracy that it makes me barf.Palladian said...
"Hypocracy" must be the brand name of some sort of emetic.I think “hypocracy” is the form of government we will have when Rare Pygmy Hippo becomes President.
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
He should forget entirely about reelection
Why would any sensible person read past this point?
That's good advice? What advice was contained within?
What was the practical advice on solving the problem? It was just some crap you might hear on MSMBC.
Jesus Christ you are a pathetic hole.
Just don't be Mitt Romney's dog.
There's something off about this guy, maybe it's just me. What he is saying to Obama is "fire everybody who made you president, stiff all the interest groups who supported you and govern as if you were me."
Three days after Obama trounced the candidate Romney campaigned for.
I mean, yeah, I kind of expect Obama's first year to be at least somewhat less partisan than normal because of the economic situation. But this takes it to an absurd level.
And the citation of Clinton's second term? His second term was mostly a waste because of hyperpartisanship, caused by the need to circle the wagons in the wake of Lewinsky. We were all just lucky the economy was running like a freight train in those years. But it was also four years of neglect and mismanagement of the Islamicist threat.
You want to point to Clinton's good years? 1995-96. His second best years were the two years before that. His final year wasn't bad. But 97-99 was the ultimate squandering of a mandate.
No one is ever as popular as the back up quarterback.
Until he has to come in to play.
It's good advice if someone like Paul Volcker is advising Obama on your economic decisions. No one can call Volcker a political animal.
Is Althouse being ironic?
I can't believe that she'd accept this stuff hook, line, and sinker.
I think Mitt forgot the post script:
And, BHO should appoint me to be T Secretary, that would be really smart of him.
"He should forget entirely about reelection....
Translation: Mitt in 2012.
"He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party.
Translation: Or you could hire me.
"He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders."
Translation: Really, Barry...I need work.
"In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship...."
Translation: If you don't hire me, I'm going to run against you, so you betta be scared....
I suppose it all depends if Obama was stiffing all the special interest groups who got him elected or if he's satisfying all the people who really did get him elected because they were trusting that he wouldn't do anything that he said he'd do.
Doesn't it.
Sounds like Romney is serving up some fudge.
I despise Romney. He is the worst of the worst. I voted for him in Mass. He was someone who I liked very much when he ran for governor. When he ran for president he was completely a different person.
Also, his "east coast elite" comments at the convention were precious.
One of my favorite things about NYC is dining and take out options. Tonight I have decided on crepes. I am going to be having an Amelie crepe with nutella, banana and roasted almonds. My drink will be a Pomegranat and Goji Berry Smoothie with green tea, lemon, strawberries and crush ice.
thank you
OHHH, The Bridge is on IFC. A guy put a camera on the Golden Gate Bridge for a year and captured more than 20 leaps of death.
You should watch these people thinking about jumping and then finally jumping. Fascinating.
RASMUSSEN:
"When asked to choose among some of the GOP's top names for their choice for the party's 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%."
(The only one who can take Obama down is Palin. She's the biggest threat to them, and that's why she has so many attacks against her. Romney cannot take down a Black man. But, Palin can easily mop the floor with anyone in her path, and that's what it's gonna take in 2012)
Because she wasn't at the top of a ticket. She was just a guest on someone else's ticket.
It's too hard to swallow a white man going after a black man.
But, if it's America's Mom coming in to save the day.....that's acceptable, and that's what it's gonna take.
The GOP is already grooming her and laying the groundwork. It's a done deal.
In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way ... Mitt can run again in 2012.
But now is not the time for partisanship opportunism. Except for that of Republican Mitt Romney advising Obama to serve one term. So he doesn't have to wait until 2016 to run again.
His second term was mostly a waste because of hyperpartisanship, caused by the need to circle the wagons in the wake of Lewinsky. We were all just lucky the economy was running like a freight train in those years. But it was also four years of neglect and mismanagement of the Islamicist threat.
I think is where right wingers completely lost their minds and have never recovered. ATF Bootjacks, Waco, Ruby Ridge, The Clinton Chronicles. Good times!
One of the jumpers in the movie actually lived. Fascinating.
The jumper that lived in hot. He is depressed. I want to cure him of being depressed.
His emotional issues are very attractive. So are his arms.
People travel from all over the world to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. Fascinating.
San Francisco is really a beautiful city.
It wasn't beautiful when I lived there. It was ugly.
I can think of younger days when living for my life
Was everything a man could want to do.
I could never see tomorrow, but I was never told about the sorrow.
And how can you mend a broken heart?
How can you stop the rain from falling down?
How can you stop the sun from shining?
What makes the world go round?
How can you mend a this broken man?
How can a loser ever win?
Please help me mend my broken heart and let me be relevant again.
(How can you mend a Broken Heart, Mitt Romney)
Jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge is a 4 second fall.
You travel 150 mph.
You go down 40-50 feet.
You usually die on the spot.
The jumper that lived said a seal was circling around him the entire time which kept him afloat.
I ♥ Mitt Romney
And it costs you nothing.
Nobody loves you when you're down and out
Nobody loves you when you're upside down
Everbody's hollerin' about their own birthday
Everybody loves you when you're six foot in the ground
That would be Mitt: Six foot in the ground.
"I -heart- Mitt Romney", so I (Prof. Althouse) proceeded to vote for...the anti-Romney, the one candidate most diametrically opposed to all of Romney's positions that I could find in either party. Twice -- once in the primaries, against all other Democrats, and then once in the general.
And McCain was incoherent. Hmmmph.
What do Obama and Romney have in common, that would cause a supporter of one to also support the other? They're both fairly young, compared to the other candidates; they're both men; they're probably the only two men in the race that could be called physically attractive; they're both in good shape; and they both have nice voices.
Maybe Ann would like to start a "Draft Brad Pitt in 2012" movement now.
This is cruel neutrality?
Well, Mitt is the most "neutral" and boring politician I know of.
The only "stuff" Althouse bought hook, line, and sinker was Obama's claimed post-partisanship. Romney is only asking Obama to honor his promises.
<"He should forget entirely about reelection....
I believe the point might be that if Obama were to concentrate on actually being the President of the United States (instead of immediately running for a second term) and if governed in the best interests of the people, then re-election would be more likely to happen.
I'm particularly concerned that organized labor would call on Barack Obama to pass the card check program. This removes from American workers the right to the secret ballot in deciding whether or not to accept a union. This legislation would do more to harm America's long-term competitiveness than almost anything I can imagine.
Mitt is exactly right. By allowing unions to coerce participation by the unwilling through NON SECRET ballots, we as a company will lose even more manufacturing jobs to overseas and other businesses will become uncompetitive driving up costs for consumers all across the board.
But....hey....who cares? Right? Obama has to pay back the unions who put him in power. Public be damned
as a country....not company.. although that is true too.
I have to say brilliant work Althouse! This post drew in all the left-wing hack trolls all at once! They truly show themselves party above country.
People voted for Obama trusting that he wouldn't do what he said he'd do.
What is out of sorts about suggesting that he live up to their expectations?
Maxine, Sarah! is now as inevitable as Hillary! was.
I agree with Romney that the country would be much better off if Obama followed Mitt's advice. But I can't imagine Obama actually doing it. The unions expect to be paid off. This means the ordinary workers are going to take it up the ass.
Serves them right for voting for the son of a bitch, I figure.
Mitt Romney is the GOP's John Edwards.
Well, yeah, except for Mitt actually having some real executive experience and being much more moderate--but the hair! Their hair is the same!
Do we know that the unions really helped Obama get elected?
They didn't help in this union household because the campaign material they sent out was all based on the premise that we weren't voting for Obama because we are racist ignorant bigots.
I really don't think that helped Obama all that much.
The unions didn't help Gore or Kerry either.
Mitt's right about one thing. The card check/EFCA legislation is a huge shitstorm waiting to happen. If McCain had flogged it a little bit during his campaign, it might have helped him out. I couldn't believe that it wasn't even an issue, but maybe he felt there was nothing to be gained by appearing to be against the supposed interests of "Joe the Whatever". If EFCA passes, and Obama has vowed to sign it, then prepare for unions to spring to new life. And employers will be powerless to even have a dialogue with their employees on the topic. They may not even know they've been unionized until it's already happened.
I just love this. It is so full of hypocracy that it makes me barf. It could also read:
"Now that we have had a real whipping in the election and the democrats pretty much run the show, hey Mr. Obama, forget about all the shit the GOP majority through at the democrats for 8 years - all the petty stuff that ol' Tom Delay use to pull like shutting off electricity in democrat hearings - ya' know that stuff that was all about exclusion....Yes PLEASE Mr. Obama, move to the right cause its the good thing to do (for us) and give the GOP a voice (when they deserve nothing short of a slow boat to China).
Yes it would be nice to be one big happy family and perhaps it is best but frankly the GOP can stand out in the rain for all I care.
Synova said...
"...they were trusting that he wouldn't do anything that he said he'd do."
You make my hair hurt.
If you follow Althouse's link to Fortune Magazine, Romney's interview is more extensive and it is very good.
Couldn't help but think:
He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders.
The middle sentence is dumb and may well merit Romney getting shit later about dismissing those who help him (though is loyalty track to subordinates is quite good) the other lines are quite good. He should not think about 2012 but show he is putting the nation #1.
The final line is right - surround Obama with the best. I'd add he also needs the best military and the best union people helping.
I can imagine Palin's advice:
"Well yeh know, we got a little crisis and the last thing we need are those elitist kinda folks that don't speak for the real America. We need Joe the plumber, Sally the fast food waitress holding a 600 big one mortgage on a 400 big one house knowin' best what tah do, you betcha.. You need Fred the high school dropout whose deliverin' those newspapers. Sparkles the Prostitute. Ignook the salmon gutter..."
Paul Zrimsek said...
He should forget entirely about reelection
Why would any sensible person read past this point?
Someone that reads history and notes that is exactly how Lincoln, FDR, Churchill did on the "fierce urgency of the here and now" in crisis.
Romneys list of the major thimgs that have to be fixed if America is ever to come back are good ones, as is his noting that the domestic auto industry - 200,000 jobs and 450,000 pensions - is now in life support and may or may not die.
Ann, your naiveté is staggering. Barack Obama pledged to accept public financing for his campaign; then he broke his promise out of sheer expediency.
The man has no honor. What makes you think he'd suddenly do the right thing now?
Earl Scheib used to have a TV commercial in which he barked, "I'll paint any car any color for $39.95."
Obama's pitch should be, "I'll screw over anybody anytime if it is expedient to advancing ME."
What a disgusting excuse for a man we now have as our president.
ohhh yaaa Harwood...ya'betcha.
Your guy lost. Your party lost. Live with it. If the only thing you have to pin on the president elect is that he had the financial support of millions of people then please run that up the flagpole of if McCain tried the same thing he would have, like he did in the primaries, go broke.
Honest to God, you GOP fruitloops are so transparent.
Millions of people all over the world supported Obama! Or, a couple of rich guys in the Middle East, same same.
In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term.
I've long argued for amending the Constitution to make the Presidency one six-year term, to be extended by a second of four years only under the most extraordinary of circumstances and by a combination of popular landslide referendum and Senate supermajority. (You wouldn't want to kick out a successful president in the middle of a war, e.g.)
What gave me this notion was being sickened by the perpetual campaign, starting with Bill Clinton's.
I've many times thought what we need right now is for five one-term presidents in a row, each of whom accomplishes one terribly difficult thing.
Alas, no such Americans have the balls anymore.
I know I'm naive, but . . if there really is a right to privacy in the constitution, why doesn't it apply to one's vote whether or not to join a union?
but the hair! Their hair is the same!
No, Mitt's is greasier.
"I just love this. It is so full of hypocracy that it makes me barf."
"Hypocracy" must be the brand name of some sort of emetic.
Machiavellian in the best sense of the term. And brilliantly Sun-tzuian if Obama were to hire Romney as his senior advisor;
Romney is transparently establishment in his thinking. Of course the inside the beltway crowd, be it the Washington beltway or the Boston beltway or the Albany beltway, wants the two parties to join in a permanent unbreakable ruling duopoly. The Demopublican-Republicratic Party forever, living the sweet inside the buttercup life on the backs of the dumb, ever connable peasantry, us.
Bad as that formula is it would be a considerable improvement over the Obama-brand marxist racist thuggery about to befall us.
"I know I'm naive, but . . if there really is a right to privacy in the constitution, why doesn't it apply to one's vote whether or not to join a union?"
Why not? Its a living document and can evolve in any direction a judge wants it to. OTOH, conceivably, some Liberal Judge could find the secret union ballot unconstitutional because of blah, blah, blah.
Once the "living constitution" gets up and goes for a walk who knows where it will end up.
hdhouse said... ohhh yaaa Harwood...ya'betcha. Your guy lost. Your party lost. Live with it. If the only thing you have to pin on the president elect is that he had the financial support of millions of people ....
---
Let us count your errors:
1. McCain wasn't my guy. I didn't vote for him.
2. My party didn't lose. I am not registered as a Republican and did not contribute one penny to the GOP.
3. My post wasn't about contributors. It was about Obama's promising to do something and then breaking his promise. The man is dishonorable, regardless of how many millions contributed to him or voted for him.
It's good to see all the lefties out in full force, on the attack against any good advice that might thwart the coming of Obamatopia..
I love this notion that opposition to card check supports some kind of universal principle.
The simple fact is that card check threatens the decades-long corrosion of worker organization. The people who oppose it don't give a damn about democracy.
The opposition to "card check" supports the universal principle that voting is a private act, to be done secretly.
What are you, kynefski? Grad student? Barista? Probably. So you've never had a union heavy puncture your tires or threaten to beat your ass?
That shit never happens, though. Right?
Moreover, unions kill productivity for absolutely nominal -- if even nominal -- gains for workers. Yeah, man, if only the guys down at the plant could make more money and have better insurance for doing less work, that would save GM for sure.
Ooooo... hot frothy troll spittle...me likessss, me doessss.
Palladin: is that pix not beggin' for a musiccal number or what?
The simple fact is that card check threatens the decades-long corrosion of worker organization. The people who oppose it don't give a damn about democracy.
If a workplace has a need for a union... if workers are ill-treated and ill-paid... a secret ballot will bring in a union. Worker organization is corroding because it was *successful*. But like all successful organizations, they can't afford to admit they've won, because if they win they no longer have purpose. At this point an organization no longer exists for the cause it was created to address, but for it's own existence.
A union is not such a universal good that it must be artificially propped up by enforcing a system designed specifically and purposefully to allow the intimidation of workers by the union!
You can pretend all you like that those opposing a card check don't care about democracy but a card check is *designed* to promote a union beyond the support that union can get through legitimate means by allowing the intimidation of workers who have different opinions on the need or utility of a union.
What Synova said. There are very valid reasons why union membership has decreased dramatically. If people want them, they can vote for them in secret, just like we do in governmental elections.
I think there was a time and place where unions were desperately needed.
My sister tried to organize a union, and I think she's right in that a union was called for and necessary to address injustice and abuse.
Of graduate students in Universities.
I'm sure if they actually allowed a vote, she'd be happy for a secret one.
A card check is only so that a union can punish those who think they don't need a union and might vote "no."
Hey... I know what would be fair...
After the union card-check... the "cards" can be sent to the employer. That sounds fair, right? So the union can see who voted "no" and the employer can see who voted "yes."
Anyone who opposes my great plan is obviously NOT interested in democracy.
Unions have done great things. But, as has been said already, it's over. They won. People don't want to be in a union now because they don't see the value in it.
Partisanship is a "good" thing. This is why I don't understand undecided voters, don't they know that an ideological worldview is necessary? You can't make decisions in a vacuum.
How do you solve slavery post partisan? Is there some type of compromise that can be made? How about abortion? Can we bring everybody together on a "solution" on abortion?
One side has to win on these types of issues, we do it with elections, other times, war solves it.
And the other thing, one term would be ridiculous, as you would be inaugurated as a lame duck and every one else starts campaigning.
Can we bring everybody together on a "solution" on abortion?
Yes, easily. Allow people to have it as an option in places where the majority wants it there. Allow people to prohibit it in places where the majority wants that. Self-government is a remarkably simple and easily-implemented concept. Strange, that so many fear it.
The simple fact is that card check threatens the decades-long corrosion of worker organization. The people who oppose it don't give a damn about democracy.
Here's an exercise. Explain how card check would end the corrosion of worker organization -- without sounding like you're condoning thuggery.
It can't be done.
If you want to be Pollyanna and assume there will be no intimidation to get people to sign the cards, then you still haven't added a single right to the workers that they don't have already. Their vote would count just the same if they did it behind a curtain or if they did it at the front door of their home while two big guys watch.
The card check supporters also argue that the rules now are too stringent in terms of time spans for elections, and what employers can say and when to the workers.
Fine. All of that can be addressed -- without changing the secret ballot.
The unions know what they're getting with card check -- the power to force workers to join unions involuntarily through intimidation. You on the left -- there is no way to perfume that particular skunk so it sounds like democracy or freedom.
Just face it. The honest truth is, you know card check is fascistic, but you don't care because your moral compass has been replaced by a dollar sign. You've sold out the workers you're supposed to represent to a cadre of wealthy labor bureaucrats and their PACs.
Mitt Romney wants to put gay people in concentration camps.
Let's also not forget that Romney is Mormon SCUM. That's right. Mormonism is a GUTTER Relgion, whose members deserve ZERO respect.
Next time a member of the Mormon Church tries to market their idiotic, cult of a "religion" to me, I will spit in their face.
Mormons can go fuck themselves.
I don't want to be seen as discriminatory towards Mormons. I think Catholicism is a gutter religion as well.
downtownlad said...Mitt Romney wants to put gay people in concentration camps.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Concentration camps, yes but he doesn't want to kill them. Just concentrate them so as to create a greater sense of community.
Romney's radical idea is to create special neighborhoods where gays can concentrate. Preferably larger cities and college towns.
Next time a member of the Mormon Church tries to market their idiotic, cult of a "religion" to me, I will spit in their face.
And you will fart in their general direction!!
Mormons can go fuck themselves.
Don't encourage them. They breed like rabbits as it is.
Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri and that they will get to rule their own planet when they die.
That's what Romney believes too.
That's insane and speaks to the low IQ of Mormons (FACT).
A rich white guy hedge fund manager.
Hey, there is some credibility there.
Advising a politician to ignore politics - that is easy when you are sitting at home counting your millions.
I'm not certain why the GOP hates blue collar workers, but the blue collar workers understand, and the backlash is going to be vicious.
Bush used the Department of Labor to try to eliminate labor unions, and guess what, payback is coming.
(there are a lot of problems with unions, but shipping jobs to China is not exactly working out so well)
I have no problems with shipping jobs to China.
downtownlad said...Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri
I think that was 1800s Missouri. Before the area took a turn for the worse.
..and that they will get to rule their own planet when they die.
Oprah believes that she will rule her own planet BEFORE she dies and she's Baptist.
That's what Romney believes too.
That's insane and speaks to the low IQ of Mormons (FACT).
Romney is not lacking in IQ.
Issac Newton believed in astrology.
downtownlad said...I have no problems with shipping jobs to China.
Romney has no problem with shipping gays to China.
I guess you're going to hold that against him as well.
amba said..."I know I'm naive, but . . if there really is a right to privacy in the constitution, why doesn't it apply to one's vote whether or not to join a union?"
The right of privacy applies only to fundamental liberties. There's a step that the courts go through, identifying those liberties, which involve only matters that are seen as especially personal to the individual and like other things that have already been put in that category, with marital sex being the paradigm.
in my excitement to skewer the GOP's on the board i misspelled...so shoot me.
in my excitement to skewer the GOP's on the board i misspelled...so shoot me.
No need — you skewered yourself.
Ironically, Romney ask Obama to rise above politics and implies that he should govern from the middle, and then takes a completely partisan position on the AFCA. Instead of discussing the complexities of this issue, admitting that employers use pressure and delay tactics in secret ballot elections, while pointing out the a card check is not the most accurate way to find out employees' feelings about unions, Romney pretends this is as simply protecting employee choice. That's just politics as usual. Anybody interested in really thinking about this issue should check out this article: http://nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09labor.html
This is a good discussion of the issue.
This "advice" is absolutely hilarious
(i) fire everyone who got you to where you are
(ii) don't worry about reelection
(iii) by doing (ii), clinton enjoyed bipartisan support in his second term
the first two are transparent as is, from a potential 2012 GOP candidate (except to the host??) but as to the third, well, clinton got impeached in his second term.
In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship
Hmm. Counter-example: South Korea. President is limited to a single term, but that hasn't prevented the Presidency from being dominated by fools as weasels for the past decade. Kim Dae Jung was bad; Noh Moo-hyun was worse (got impeached for illegal partisan electioneering). I like Lee Myung-Bak (comparatively), but he's not, objectively, any better than his predecessors on the narrow partisanship issue; I just like the Hannaradang better than Uri.
He has already begun to campaign for the left-wing illuminati with his first address to the nation. He said they can't fix things in one term, a bit different from his former speeches.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा