Romney's problem

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Nice going myboynoah. You've empowered him.

It's a game I play. I'm an amateur psychiatrist.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Tex

We can assume, then, that in your mind, no one can be an outsider to Washington and simultaneously share the same political values of those in power?

No, that's not what I said. I just pointed out the irony of it all.

Those folks in Washington hoping for a Romney victory are probably more concerned about job security or finding something better inside government than the current values that Romney espouses. My contact thinks Romney is a phony, but won't go public with that until Mitt is out of the race. I wonder why.

The current focus on "change" is an interesting phenomenon, especially coming from Repubs. Except for at the margins, I don't know that I want much change, but "change" is the new buzz word and politicians (all of them) say things to get elected (McCains Osama and gates of hell comments being another good example). I want competence right now, and in my mind Mitt and Rudy offer the best options for that.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

The current focus on "change" is an interesting phenomenon, especially coming from Repubs. Except for at the margins, I don't know that I want much change, but "change" is the new buzz word and politicians (all of them) say things to get elected (McCains Osama and gates of hell comments being another good example). I want competence right now, and in my mind Mitt and Rudy offer the best options for that.

From a casual observer of this election, that's my take. It's not a Romney problem, as MW says, it's a Republican problem. Country hates Bush. They want out of Iraq. They want more socialized medicine. That's the change they're after. Republicans use the buzzword change because they know it's what the public wants to hear, but none of them offer change. It sounds very hollow hearing any of them talk about change.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

No, that's not what I said. I just pointed out the irony of it all.

Those folks in Washington hoping for a Romney victory are probably more concerned about job security or finding something better inside government than the current values that Romney espouses. My contact thinks Romney is a phony, but won't go public with that until Mitt is out of the race. I wonder why.

The current focus on "change" is an interesting phenomenon, especially coming from Repubs. Except for at the margins, I don't know that I want much change, but "change" is the new buzz word and politicians (all of them) say things to get elected (McCains Osama and gates of hell comments being another good example). I want competence right now, and in my mind Mitt and Rudy offer the best options for that.

I think "change" for change's sake is stupid, so I'm not necessarily on board with Romney or anyone else on that message. I want to know WHAT's changing and HOW.

As for your friend, I don't mean to be rude, but he sounds like nothing more than an opportunistic bureaucrat. I can imagine there's tons of people at all levels of gov't who don't like the prospect of potentially losing their job every 4 years. Sorry, but that's the game that's played. If you don't like it, try the private sector. I fail to see how that can be generalized onto Romney support generally.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He is trying to run as anti-establishment, but on an entirely establishment platform.

You can't be the cool guy and the nerd at the same time.

It's like he is saying "My vision is not unique, but gosh, my process is better. I'll get the work from the inbox to the outbox more efficiently than the other guys."

If you were the cigars in the backroom, picking a platform, it would almost entirely look like Romney's platform. And the voters know this.

To add to the irony, Romney wants to the good ol' boy. But what he didn't realize is that you can't be a good ol' boy and a Mormon at the same time. Tough lesson.

held a real job? From what I can see.......outside of Romney or Guiliani, they are all politicians. As Einstein once said, No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He is trying to run as anti-establishment, but on an entirely establishment platform.

You can't be the cool guy and the nerd at the same time.

It's like he is saying "My vision is not unique, but gosh, my process is better. I'll get the work from the inbox to the outbox more efficiently than the other guys."

If you were the cigars in the backroom, picking a platform, it would almost entirely look like Romney's platform. And the voters know this.

To add to the irony, Romney wants to the good ol' boy. But what he didn't realize is that you can't be a good ol' boy and a Mormon at the same time. Tough lesson.

The point he is trying to make is that as a Washington outsider, and someone who was succesful in the private sector for 25 years, he can use those same skills to be a more effective President than the others.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by exUte

held a real job? From what I can see.......outside of Romney or Guiliani, they are all politicians. As Einstein once said, No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.

"God cannot solve the problems of his own making." -Mike Waters

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Tex

As for your friend, I don't mean to be rude, but he sounds like nothing more than an opportunistic bureaucrat. I can imagine there's tons of people at all levels of gov't who don't like the prospect of potentially losing their job every 4 years. Sorry, but that's the game that's played. If you don't like it, try the private sector. I fail to see how that can be generalized onto Romney support generally.

Let me explain. My work colleague is a "political appointee," not a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are the careerists that IPU despises, the cogs that make the government machine run, and represent the vast majority of government workers (95+ percent I am sure, if not higher). They are the experts on issues and retain their jobs no matter who the president is; they have job security and provide continuity in government as administrations change.

Their bosses are the political appointees that come and go with each adiminstration as payoff for their support during the election. The higher level appointees gave money and raised funds. The lower level folks worked stuffing envelopes, polling, canvasing, planning events, etc. Few have real policy experience. Some are pleasent and harmless, others are real power obsessed jerks. Most are living out their dreams, walking the halls of government with an "Assistant Secretary" name tag, yet they are usually gone with the next election. A friendly adminstration coming in could mean four more years in the same job or even something better if they have the right connections. Eventually, many want to parlay their experience into some kind of political or private sector career.

My work colleague is tuned in enough to know who most current political appointees (the Bushies) are hoping wins the election and noted that person in Romney. This is most likely because Romney is the "establishment" candidate, the one whose political ties run most directly to the Bush adminstration and the party power brokers. Of course, that will change if his prospects continue to dim.

I think it's kind of cool that a fellow tribe member has reached such a lofty perch.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Let me explain.

I was using the term bureaucrat in a very generic sense, but I appreciate the explanation. I'm aware of some of the differences ... the State Department, for example, while being run at the top by a Bush-appointee for 8 years is still full of foreign policy liberals who survive from admin to admin.

Originally Posted by myboynoah

My work colleague is tuned in enough to know who most current political appointees (the Bushies) are hoping wins the election and noted that person in Romney. This is most likely because Romney is the "establishment" candidate, the one whose political ties run most directly to the Bush adminstration and the party power brokers. Of course, that will change if his prospects continue to dim.

I think it's kind of cool that a fellow tribe member has reached such a lofty perch.

Again, I get it. I believe you cited your friend's perspective as evidence that Romney couldn't credibly cast himself as the "candidate of change" or as an outsider, since he's a favorite of the "insiders." I was simply disagreeing.

[MikeWaters]

Sure he can cast himself as the rebel outsider, social conservative, who is going to storm the capital and shake things up.

It's just that no one buys it. And that's why his campaign is on life-support.