Monday, August 27, 2012

Romney: A Man Who Has a Record of Getting Things Done

I’m sure the Massachusetts liberals will chime in and crap all over this, but WaPo did a nice, balanced story on What Romney’s run with the Big Dig tells us about how he’d manage America.

The story talks about how his CEO style didn’t go over well with state lawmakers, and that is a downside (or maybe an upside.  Do we really need one more unctuous backslapper in our nation's capital?). Another downside is the accusations that he took his eye off the ball towards the end of his term. But it also mentions how he balanced the budget and lowered unemployment.*

The article centers around that Big Dig tragedy where a woman lost her life…
“It was his finest hour,’’ Trimarco said. “He immediately took charge. He really was starting from ground zero, and he was up to 60 miles per hour in like three seconds.’’
This is what caught my eye:
Romney took advantage of the newly receptive mood among legislators shocked by the accident. Dispatching aides to Boston’s Beacon Hill, within 72 hours he pushed through legislation giving him control over safety inspections and reopening the tunnel.
This is a man who runs to the sound of the guns, not away from them. How many politicians fight to take responsibility for something so big and fraught with political peril?

DC is a city where politicians seek glory and fame while assiduously avoiding any taint of responsibility or blame.  Romney could be a refreshing change for the District of Criminals.

* Here is a dimmer view of Romney's record as governor.  He did lower unemployment and he did balance the budget.  All they can pin on him is that he overstates his record and doesn't put it in proper context:   Fact Check - Romney

56 comments:

conservativesonfire said...

Romney is a can do guy. That is something we sorely lack in Washington. If he focuses on the right problems, he can and will do a lot of good for America.

Bunkerville said...

Good find. This is who we have, and best focus on the positive aspects, rather than take the bait of the left. If we stay out of the social weeds we just might pull this off.

Z said...

I'm hoping more and more fair articles are written but won't hold my breath. Thanks for posting this. i agree with you and the 2 commenters above me.

Ducky's here said...

Romney took advantage of the newly receptive mood among legislators shocked by the accident. Dispatching aides to Boston’s Beacon Hill, within 72 hours he pushed through legislation giving him control over safety inspections and reopening the tunnel.

-----
Hey bobo, Romney was the force behind allowing Bechtel to do its own safety inspections in the first place.

He did a nice job of passing the buck and getting "Fat" Matt Amorello to take the fall.

Again, Bechtel was doing its own inspections due to Romney's malfeasance.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: Hey bobo, Romney was the force behind allowing Bechtel to do its own safety inspections in the first place.

Hey dingbat, the article I link to mentions that, if you would go read it.

Thersites said...

This is a man who runs to the sound of the guns, not away from them.

lol! Tell THAT to Akin in MO.

Ducky's here said...

... and I can't believe the nasty LIBERAL (LMAO) media got away with such a puff piece on Governor Olympics.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Mitt Romney, a man who calls himself "a moderate and a PROGRESSIVE!"


We in Massachusetts actually took his word, when he promised, on his word, that he would respect a woman's right to choose.

That is, until he went back on everything he gave his oath to.

He believes humans contribute to global warming, supported the TARP as "the right thing to do."

Loved the mandate!

"I like mandates>." --Willard Romney

Supported the assault weapons ban and supported the Brady law.

He supported "tough" gun laws.

If you believe he's "evolved" on these core values, I've got a bridge, etc. etc.


"I'm a moderate progressive." --Willard Romney

Ducky's here said...

Well, Silver, if you praise Governor Olympics for avoiding the heat it seems valid to restate the fact that he was responsible for the problem.

He's going to go for less regulation like Greenspan did to let the housing market go wild.

Remember, The Full Ayn Rand will do you raw.

Ducky's here said...

Of course, Shaw, to get elected in Massachusetts he had to make some attempt not to appear to be a Neanderthal.

Anita Davis said...

How quickly the liberals selectively forgot about Joe Biden's vile, hate-filled, “going to put y’all back in chains,” outrageous message.

But they are still filling their blogs with Sarah Palin nonsense, and still playing the Blame Bush game. .

Mark Adams said...

Well Shaw, based on those 10 year old clips, Romney should be right up your ally, then. And based on "If you believe he's "evolved" on these core values, I've got a bridge, etc. etc." he should get your vote, No? Or do you vote based on what someone looks like?

One can easily say the same thing about Obama "he went back on everything he gave his oath to"

So what is it? Did he evolve or did he go back on his oath?

Ducky's here said...

Anita, what does that have to do with Governor Olympic' inability to manage the Dig?

Ducky's here said...

Mark, what he did in Massachusetts was say what he had to say to get elected (similar to Obama) and then spend most of his time outside the state preparing his presidential race. He was a no show.

If you are familiar with the swamp of Massachusetts politics you know that the speaker of the house runs the state. At least until the indictment.

Mustang said...

LOL @ Steve ...

Obama has a plan? Do tell ...

Ducky's here said...

He did lower unemployment and he did balance the budget.

----
Massachusetts unemployment is generally below the national average and Mittens inherited a pretty healthy economy.

All state governors have to balance the budget. This talking point only plays with the suckers.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: Well, Silver, if you praise Governor Olympics for avoiding the heat it seems valid to restate the fact that he was responsible for the problem.

No argument there. I responded to your childish name calling.

I posted this knowing full well two Mass liberals and one Mass Rational Libertarian would it.

This is your free-fire zone since he was your governor. Have a ball.

Ducky's here said...

Well mustang the economy is weak but:

1. Housing is recovering

2. Inflation is low other than drought related costs he certainly couldn't control

3. Interest rates are low.

So we could be in much poorer conditions and there's no way to second guess what he could have done. I think he could have done a hell of a lot more to boost the housing market but not without aggravating the banksters.

Now what does Romney and the Boy Ayn Rand (even Hayek admitted he couldn't finish Atlas Shrugged offer?

Austerity and the gold standard?
If you can explain how that will generate growth and not another deep recession we'd all love to hear the plan.


skudrunner said...

Duck

You forgot to add a few things
4. Jobs are non existent
5. Small business start-ups are down
6. There are 5 fewer auto brands
7. The Attorney general is being sued by congress
8. The attorney general is suing more states than prosecuting criminals
9. Not one congressman voted for the Obama budget
10. Gitmo is still open
11. Deficit is not cut in half
12. Hope and Change is now Hope You Don't Remember.

It must be hard to not have anything positive to say about the failure you support and have to just attack. That has got to be frustrating.

-FJ said...

Fallacy #1...

Housing is recovering.

All ducky's mistakes flow from this single critical error.

The total US for-sale inventory of single family homes, condos, townhomes and co-ops remained at historic lows, with 1.866 million units for sale in July 2012, down -19.26% compared to a year ago.

The median list price in July held steady at $194,900, roughly the same as the previous two months but 2.63% above the median list price in July 2011. The median age of inventory was down -9.27% compared to one year ago.

Low inventories, combined with rising list prices and lower times on market, are positive signs that the overall market is in a stabilization mode.


Meanwhile, what has been the cost to taxpayers of "stabilizing" that housing market? Both FREDDIE and FANNIE are nearly $200B in the hole AND will have to sell off about 2/3 of their current mortgage portfolios by 2018 to get under their $250B funding caps... so with a legislative "cap" in the offing, we can expect that the future losses will be "enormous".

-FJ said...

Obama HAS proven one thing to the American people. It's that lemon socialism, from Housing to Green Energy, is a sucker's game

Ducky's here said...

skudrunner, describing the state of the economy gives us nothing but descriptive variables.

No don't be a dummy and attribute causation to a descriptive variable.

What do you propose?

skudrunner said...

Duck,

Very good comeback. You have learned much from your incompetent incumbent.
Bob, Weave, Divert, Deceive

Shaw Kenawe said...

"One can easily say the same thing about Obama "he went back on everything he gave his oath to."

Well then why don't you back up your assertion with proof?

viburnum said...

Read 'em and weep

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

skudrunner said...

Viburmum

The only reason he broke any of those promises is the obstructionist republicans, especially in his first two years when he had a huge majority. In his first two years in office he was able to get obamacare through or the Madam polosi and Slimy reid did. After exempting large companies and unions it will be paid for by small business and the middle class but that is his target audience to punish.

What stands out about all of his broken promises is no mention by him of rewarding or recognizing personal responsibility or achievement but plenty of rewarding failure.

Ducky's here said...

especially in his first two years when he had a huge majority

------
Wrong again.

The way it's played in the Senate you have to have a 60 vote super majority to get anything passed.
He never had that.

Pitch till you win

Ducky's here said...

Meanwhile, what has been the cost to taxpayers of "stabilizing" that housing market?
-------
What would be the cost of not stabilizing it?

The middle class has already lost a significant part of its net wealth thanks to the bon temps roulez housing bust. Do you propose that they lose more?

viburnum said...

Ducky: "He never had that."

Then how did the PPACA pass by a vote of 60-39?

Silverfiddle said...

"What would be the cost of not stabilizing it?"

Less, since the federal money laundering scheme would not have been involved.

Finntann said...

"What would be the cost of not stabilizing it?"

I don't know, what's the cost of comparing objective and subjective values?

It's like comparing how many pins are in the box with how many angels can dance on the heads of them.

Why, when confronted with objective facts, you liberals always defend yourselves with subjective ones?

Oooh! If it weren't for Prince Obama we'd have lost 30 million more jobs.

Nevertheless, I'll play your silly game...

Half!

Happy?

Who would you be today if your parents were Chinese?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"viburnum said...
Read 'em and weep

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/"


Not being able to deliver on campaign promises is not the same as violating your own oath, as Romney has done.

One has to have cooperation in passing legislation on what one promised in a campaign.

That's not the case when Romney stated on video that he vowed never to violate his promise to keep a woman's right to choose.

And then a few years later, when having to appeal to the extremists in the GOP, he broke his solemn oath.

You're also dismissing his own words where he identifies himself as a "moderate" and a "progressive."

Mr. Obama has done no such thing.



Liberalmann said...

Massachusetts under Romney; 47th in job creation. 'Nuff said.

viburnum said...

Shaw: "One has to have cooperation in passing legislation on what one promised in a campaign."

With solid majorities in both houses of Congress for his first two years?

As for violating his oath, we should start with the one about preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. His propensity for attempting to circumvent both the legislature and the law by executive decree is a clear violation of his responsibilities under Article 2 Section III

Ducky's here said...

Finntann, stop being a jackass.

You don't know what the absolute downside of letting the economy tank might have been but you would be willing to find out rather than spend Federal money.

Get back on the short bus, you people are incorrigible. Silver, you can join him in the rear.


-FJ said...


The middle class has already lost a significant part of its net wealth thanks to the bon temps roulez housing bust. Do you propose that they lose more?


How can they not? Who's going to buy a trillion in mortgage debt over the next six years from FANNIE. and FREDDIE? The Chinese? Yet the HAVE to sell... it's "the law"... Which likely means another trillion in appraised value has got to come out of the housing market... because no one NOT backed by lemon socialism is going to buy it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"With solid majorities in both houses of Congress for his first two years?"


Wrong. He didn't.

"...the President needed 60 votes to pass legislation? The healthcare bill is a good example of that. There were NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate. Remember that? So there had to be reconciliation.

What about the Stimulus? Again, there was NOT 60 Democratic votes to pass it. Reconciliation did not work. It was blocked by the Republicans, and Obama traded job-creating for tax cuts. Remember those tax cuts he let go on? Yep, traded for job creation - which it did accomplish as much as the baby stimulus that he was able to get would allow.

Is it all coming back to you now? How about this: It was Obama’s inaugural dinner. Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure. It’s kind of hard to work when you’ve had a seizure. He went back to Massachusetts.

Old news is so much fun to go back and read about. Here’s one I had forgotten, too. Al Franken had not yet been seated because the previous senator had challenged the election. Mein Gott, that went on forever with no way for him to vote in the Senate.

With Kennedy in Massachusetts and Franken in purgatory, awaiting his chance in the hell that is Congress, that left just 58 votes in the Senate. Memory Refresher: It took 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The Republicans were already playing dirty politics and would not work across the aisle with the Democrats.

By the way, that was 56 Democrats and 2 Democratically-minded Independents. Not 58 Democrats.

Then, in April 2009 – good news. Republican Arlen Spector switched to Democrat. That gave the Democrats 60 seats with which to discourage a Republican filibuster (their most prized procedure at the time). But… oh no… we forgot, Al Franken was still in Purgatory out there in election recount turmoil. So… back to 59 votes.

We can pause here to lovingly remember the filibuster I just mentioned. Republicans made history during that time by using it more than any time ever before. Reminder (because this can get confusing): It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The Democrats only had 59 at this point… technically. One of those votes was the very ill, Senator Kennedy. He did cast one vote during that time.

Then, Senator Byrd was admitted to the hospital.

Then Al Franken was sworn in but Byrd was still in the hospital and Kennedy was too sick to ever vote again.

Senator Byrd finally returned, but Kennedy did not.

It wasn’t until August- 2009 that Senator Kirk was appointed to Kennedy’s seat, and finally they had the 60 votes.

That filibuster-proof 60 votes lasted exactly 4 months – Not 2 years. Not 1 year. Not 6 months.

Just 4 months – from August 2009 to February 2010 - when Scott Brown was sworn in."


"U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings."

-FJ said...

The market has been "stabilized" on top of a fulcrum that disappears in six years... and when it disappears... there's only one direction which it can go.

-FJ said...

All the Obama admin has done is temporarily forestall the housing market's inevitable collapse... on TOP of the fiscal cliff they built for 2013.

-FJ said...

So lets take our lumps now. Why prolong the pain for another decade?

Silverfiddle said...

It's a lousy president who has a majority in the house and senate but still whines about not being able to pass his agenda.

Mitt Romney got things done as a Republican in a deep blue state.

Ducky: Lost wealth? It was never there in the first place and you know it. You're wasting our time. Plop your own ass on your short bus.

Finntann said...

@You don't know what the absolute downside of letting the economy tank might have been but you would be willing to find out rather than spend Federal money.

And you can prove that we wouldn'
t be better off today had we let GM tank and a few mortgage banks fail? Sometimes you just need to take your licks to learn your lesson.

What we did do can not be positively proven to have done anything positive or negative.

You're a perfect example of the philosophy 'do anything even if it's wrong'.

But you would be willing to find out rather than spend Federal money.

Damn Skippy!

@Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress,

And when they are in violation of certain Acts of Congress? Such as selective enforcement, circumvention of legislation, etc?

"challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings."

So what are you saying?


"So sue me?"

Typical

Silverfiddle said...

And here's a bonus question for Professor Quackers:

If government intervention were to reinflate home prices to what they were during the bubble, what would you call that?

viburnum said...

@ Shaw

All of which add up to him being the single most inept politician ever to cross the District line. His "my way or the highway" attitude prevents the normal give and take, and compromises necessary for the functioning of government in a democracy.

I know all about the antiquity of executive orders, but they have never been construed as giving the President authority to rescind and rewrite laws already on the books. He does however have the responsibility to " ... take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Shaw Kenawe said...

All of which add up to him being the single most inept politician ever to cross the District line. His "my way or the highway" attitude prevents the normal give and take, and compromises necessary for the functioning of government in a democracy.


Obama at one point offered 10 spending cuts to one tax increase. Why wasn't the GOP willing to work with him on that?

You're leaving out the fact that the GOP made a pact on the night of Mr. Obama's inauguration to stall, obstruct, and stall again ANYTHING he tried to pass.

To ignore the fact that he face a stonewall of obstruction and sabotage is to be hopelessly blind to reality.

"The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades......A U.S. Labor Department jobs report showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September......The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% in December from 6.7% in November - its highest rate since January 1993."

Do you think Obama should have stopped the job hemorrhaging with a magic wand while Republicans were blocking just about every piece of legislation proposed by Obama and the Dems?



viburnum said...

Shaw: "Obama at one point offered 10 spending cuts to one tax increase. Why wasn't the GOP willing to work with him on that?"

Because raising taxes in a recession is insanity. When the boat is sinking you don't punch another hole in the bottom to let the Water out!

Leticia said...

I just hope he will stick with what he has promised. Not that the GOP has a choice.

He is a business man, but I am not to pleased on his stance on abortion.

beamish said...

This is a man who runs to the sound of the guns, not away from them.

Unionized construction workers spent over 20 years building a pork barrel spending highway tunnel deathtrap complete with human decapitating guardrails, and Romney is bold for figuring out there needs to be regulations to stop people from trying to suspend 20 ton slabs of concrete from a drop of Super Glue?

That makes him Captain Obvious, not Tennyson's Light Brigade.

Z said...

Viburnum, I believe it was in 2006 that then Senator Obama said this very thing you said "Because raising taxes in a recession is insanity. When the boat is sinking you don't punch another hole in the bottom to let the Water out!"

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Because raising taxes in a recession is insanity. When the boat is sinking you don't punch another hole in the bottom to let the Water out!"

It's insanity to cut spending in TEN areas and raise taxes on the very, very wealthy by a few percentage points?

skudrunner said...

Shaw

"You're leaving out the fact that the GOP made a pact on the night of Mr. Obama's inauguration to stall, obstruct, and stall again ANYTHING he tried to pass."

That is not true and you know it. They did say they would stop his re-election which is different than your statement. I guess the democrats say we want to elect a republican.

Bob, Weave, Divert, Deceive

Liberalmann said...

Massachusetts under Romney; 47th in job creation. 'Nuff said.

Silverfiddle said...

Balanced budget, lowered unemployment, saved the Olympics as well as many floundering companies. Nuff Said!

-FJ said...

If you want to raise taxes on the wealthy, why not simply raise the corporate tax rate?

Oooops. You'll hear no Democrats calling for THAT...

-FJ said...

The REALLY wealthy don't PAY "income" taxes!

-FJ said...

...they're too busy floating their "corporate" yachts filled with "corporate" money to offshore banks in the Bahamas.