Recliner <Recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I wasn't suggesting that his presidential ambitions were motivated by
>money (that was Tony's suggestion). Romney has more than enough
>already, so clearly that wasn't the motivation.
>What I was wondering about was why a 65-year old with a successful
>business career behind him would want to put himself through such a
>gruelling, unpleasant campaign with a <50% chance of winning when he
>could otherwise enjoy a very comfortable retirement, with more than
>enough money to pursue any other interests he might have.
That's like saying Donald Trump has no need to continue working, nor
Warren Buffet, nor Richard Branson. All those people have more than
enough already and could have retired years ago, yet they continue to
earn even more.
Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <Recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I wasn't suggesting that his presidential ambitions were motivated by
>> money (that was Tony's suggestion). Romney has more than enough
>> already, so clearly that wasn't the motivation.
>> What I was wondering about was why a 65-year old with a successful
>> business career behind him would want to put himself through such a
>> gruelling, unpleasant campaign with a <50% chance of winning when he
>> could otherwise enjoy a very comfortable retirement, with more than
>> enough money to pursue any other interests he might have.
> That's like saying Donald Trump has no need to continue working, nor
> Warren Buffet, nor Richard Branson. All those people have more than
> enough already and could have retired years ago, yet they continue to
> earn even more.
Yes, they're continuing to do work that they're good at and enjoy. I
wouldn't have been surprised if Romney had continued as a businessman, as
he's clearly good at it (as he keeps reminding everyone) and presumably
enjoyed it. But he's not by good at politics (eg, famously wooden, regular
gaffes, no empathy with ordinary people, only ever won one election, etc)
and he comes across more as the management consultant and CEO that he once
was than as a politician. For example, the remarks he made on his London
visit that managed to offend so many people here would have been much more
acceptable if he was still a consultant.
Incidentally, Trump makes an even more unlikely politician. It's also
noticeable how attempts to bring in top businessmen as UK government
ministers in the Lords have also not worked.
>>> I wasn't suggesting that his presidential ambitions were motivated by
>>> money (that was Tony's suggestion). Romney has more than enough
>>> already, so clearly that wasn't the motivation.
>>> What I was wondering about was why a 65-year old with a successful
>>> business career behind him would want to put himself through such a
>>> gruelling, unpleasant campaign with a <50% chance of winning when he
>>> could otherwise enjoy a very comfortable retirement, with more than
>>> enough money to pursue any other interests he might have.
>> That's like saying Donald Trump has no need to continue working, nor
>> Warren Buffet, nor Richard Branson. All those people have more than
>> enough already and could have retired years ago, yet they continue to
>> earn even more.
>Yes, they're continuing to do work that they're good at and enjoy.
I was referring to your suggestion that Romney should retire, as in
"when he could otherwise enjoy a very comfortable retirement, with
more than enough money to pursue any other interests he might have."
I
>wouldn't have been surprised if Romney had continued as a businessman, as
>he's clearly good at it (as he keeps reminding everyone) and presumably
>enjoyed it. But he's not by good at politics (eg, famously wooden, regular
>gaffes, no empathy with ordinary people, only ever won one election, etc)
>and he comes across more as the management consultant and CEO that he once
>was than as a politician. For example, the remarks he made on his London
>visit that managed to offend so many people here would have been much more
>acceptable if he was still a consultant.
>Incidentally, Trump makes an even more unlikely politician. It's also
>noticeable how attempts to bring in top businessmen as UK government
>ministers in the Lords have also not worked.
The problem with bringing in people with outside expertise is that
Ministers, including those who brought the people in, tend not to
listen to them. The businessmen are not used to being ignored and
their dissatisfaction rises quickly to the point where they cannot be
bothered making pronouncements that no-one listens to, regardless of
their merit.
Instead, Ministers strongly prefer to bring in Spads, or Special
Advisors. Spads are taken on by Ministers and employed by the
Department. They mostly do as they are told and almost always seem to
come up with ideas that their Ministers find attractive.
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 12:45:56 +0000, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2012 12:23, Recliner wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I must admit, I can't imagine why a 65 year old, super rich man would
>>> put himself through the gruelling election campaign, when it was
>>> always likely that the incumbent would retain the presidency. It also
>>> put his Mormon cult membership under the spotlight, which clearly
>>> embarrassed him greatly.
>> Money isn't the sole motivation in life.
>> And at times it seemed far from certain that the incumbent would win
>> again (though at least some of these prediction models seem to have been
>> predicated on the notion that '08 was a bit of an exception in terms of
>> the involvement of those who were not traditionally politically engaged,
>> but said models look somewhat shaky now).
> I wasn't suggesting that his presidential ambitions were motivated by
> money (that was Tony's suggestion). Romney has more than enough
> already, so clearly that wasn't the motivation.
> What I was wondering about was why a 65-year old with a successful
> business career behind him would want to put himself through such a
> gruelling, unpleasant campaign with a <50% chance of winning when he
> could otherwise enjoy a very comfortable retirement, with more than
> enough money to pursue any other interests he might have. And even if
> he'd won, he'd be facing four or eight years of hard work and worry
> (look at how Obama has aged, as did Dubya before him).
> And the same for Hillary -- she's had a tough four years, and I can't
> imagine why she would want to have another run at the presidency in
> 2016; even if she won, she'd have a hard job until well into her 70s.
Belief in a cause? A concept of public service? Lack of any desire to kick back and 'retire'?
Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
> [...]
> Incidentally, Trump makes an even more unlikely politician. It's also
> noticeable how attempts to bring in top businessmen as UK government
> ministers in the Lords have also not worked.
In message <7oin98lrtfbd36hmosvnp7r9vogcagl...@4ax.com>, at 15:16:19 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> remarked:
>The problem with bringing in people with outside expertise
Goats.
>is that Ministers, including those who brought the people in, tend not >to listen to them. The businessmen are not used to being ignored
And don't understand why they were recruited if only to be ignored.
>and their dissatisfaction rises quickly to the point where they cannot >be bothered making pronouncements that no-one listens to, regardless of >their merit.
>Instead, Ministers strongly prefer to bring in Spads,
Perhaps they need some TPWS, aka Treating Policy Wonks Sceptically.
>or Special Advisors. Spads are taken on by Ministers and employed by >the Department. They mostly do as they are told and almost always seem >to come up with ideas that their Ministers find attractive.
Recliner <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm surprised that you are so critical!
>>>> I think Romney was an excellent candidate as was John McCain last
>>>> time. Romney was credible because he is a moderate Republican who did
>>>> not wish to divide America in the way that Barack Obama has, however
>>>> unintentionally. Romney had a record of reaching across the political
>>>> divide, of promoting policies that heal rather than divide and of
>>>> governing from the centre. Much the same was true of John McCain.
>>>> The problem hasn't been the Republican candidates, it has been the
>>>> Republican party and especially the Tea Party faction. Romney had to
>>>> lurch to the right to get their approval for the nomination and was
>>>> unable to backtrack from the extreme right wing politics to his own
>>>> moderate policies during the election campaign. Poor old John McCain
>>>> was saddled with the unstable Sarah Palin.
>>> Ironically McCain selected Palin in *preference* to Romney, and Romney
>>> picked another Tea Party favourite, Paul Ryan to be his veep. That didn't
>>> suggest that he'd be a moderate, bipartisan president. Both of them lost
>>> their home states in the general election.
>> I doubt that McCain selected Palin. Rather, she was forced on McCain
>> who tried to look pleased and mostly failed.
>> Again, I doubt Paul Ryan would have been Romney's choice.
>You obviously have very little respect for either McCain or Romney if you
>think that some mysterious party establishment foisted these veep
>candidates on the. Palin was McCain's typically impetuous choice with
>little vetting, whereas Romney ran a typically careful, meticulous,
>corporate HR selection process.
I have plenty of respect for McCain and Romney, just as I have for
Obama.
At the end of the day the veep candidates are subject to the approval
or veto of the appropriate party's National Committee. All the
Presidential candidates can do is put up names for thir approval.
I think you will find that it is not true that McCain chose Palin.
Eventually, he realised that he had no choice but to accept her as his
running mate.
>>> Romney also cultivated the image that he was a successful governor of Mass,
>>> but his approval ratings had slumped from 56-66% in the first few months of
>>> his term to 34-39% at the end -- much lower than Obama's at their worst.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Job_approval...
>> I think the image Romney tried to cultivate was that of a Republican
>> who could win over a traditionally Democrat state. The fact it went
>> blue after one Romney four-year term should not surprise anyone. The
>> real surprise was that he won.
>But he certainly lost support very quickly, which suggests that he wasn't
>the wonderful governor that you think. And he lost his home state in the
>general election, as did Ryan.
Who said he was a wonderful Governor? Not me.
What he does deserve credit for is appealing sufficiently strongly to
the electorate in a traditionally Democrat state for them to elect a
Republican as Governor.
>> Again, I am surprised that you appear to be supporting someone who is
>> committed to Big Government and will probably have spent the whole of
>> his two terms trying to turn the USA into a highly taxed, highly
>> interventionist and welfare-based economy, resembling more a mainland
>> European state rather than the Land of the Free. In some ways he has
>> positioned himself to the left of Ed Miliband's Labour Party. If you
>> wouldn't want that for Britain, why for the USA?
>In many respects (eg, military policy, healthcare, taxes), Obama is to the
>right of Cameron, not to the left of Miliband.
But not in the policy areas I stated, which you seem conveniently to
have ignored. On military policy and, to some extent, healthcare,
Obama's hands are tied which is why his defence and health policies
are not so vastly different from those of his predecessors. But on
taxes, Obama would be pushing for a far more 'European' approach if
Congress allowed him to.
>> I had hoped Romney would win because he offered more hope than Obama
>> of uniting the American people. Obama talks about "One Nation" and
>> "We're all in this together" (I wonder where those ideas came from?)
>> but he is probably the most divisive President I can remember.
>Yes, Romney united the Mormons, religious women and rich white older men,
>but not many others. It was noticeable how the 'rape' senate candidates
>were rightly beaten, gay marriage was approved in some states, and pot was
>legalised in some states. It seems that America is more secular and liberal
>than the GOP thought.
>Presumably you wouldn't have minded if Americans with pre-existing (eg,
>back) conditions would have the lost the ability to get affordable
>treatment?
Funnily enough, I have that very problem in the UK. The NHS will not
give me the treatment I need, on cost grounds. The private health
insurers exclude pre-existing conditions; I have suffered with this
for 30 years. So my only option would be to pay for private treatment
which I cannot afford.
I found it odd that Obamacare was in many respects identical to the
Romneycare that was implemented in Massachusetts, yet the Republicans
insisted it had to be repealed. I suppose that, as with many other
things, Romney's position on Obamacare would have been very different
should he have taken office.
>> My fear is what will happen in 2016. By then, more Americans will be
>> heartily sick of Obama and his "socialism" and more than prepared to
>> vote Republican. The GOP will be able to put up almost any candidate
>> they choose. I strongly doubt that the 2016 GOP candidate will be
>> anything like as moderate as Mitt Romney, yet he/she will almost
>> certainly win against Hillary Clinton.
>Unless the GOP changes, it will continue to focus relentlessly on
>gun-loving, less-educated, older, rural, white, religious, male, southern
>people. That won't give them anything like 50% of the popular or electoral
>college votes in America's changing demography. I wish Hillary well, though
>she may be too old at 69 by 2016.
The GOP has to change, and it will. Hillary won't be Secretary of
State in Obama's second term so it will free her up to campaign for
the nomination in 2016.
> In message <7oin98lrtfbd36hmosvnp7r9vogcagl...@4ax.com>, at 15:16:19 on
> Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> The problem with bringing in people with outside expertise
> Goats.
>> is that Ministers, including those who brought the people in, tend not
>> to listen to them. The businessmen are not used to being ignored
> And don't understand why they were recruited if only to be ignored.
>> and their dissatisfaction rises quickly to the point where they cannot
>> be bothered making pronouncements that no-one listens to, regardless
>> of their merit.
>> Instead, Ministers strongly prefer to bring in Spads,
> Perhaps they need some TPWS, aka Treating Policy Wonks Sceptically.
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <7oin98lrtfbd36hmosvnp7r9vogcagl...@4ax.com>, at 15:16:19 on >Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>The problem with bringing in people with outside expertise
>Goats.
Goats to you too!
You may have meant to type GOATs, just like I should have typed SPADs,
but didn't, to avoid confusion with Signals Passed at Danger.
>>is that Ministers, including those who brought the people in, tend not >>to listen to them. The businessmen are not used to being ignored
>And don't understand why they were recruited if only to be ignored.
They aren't the only people who don't understand why they were
recruited if only to be ignored.
>>and their dissatisfaction rises quickly to the point where they cannot >>be bothered making pronouncements that no-one listens to, regardless of >>their merit.
>>Instead, Ministers strongly prefer to bring in Spads,
>Perhaps they need some TPWS, aka Treating Policy Wonks Sceptically.
I think what Ministers really need is a FUTA. Firework Up The ...
>Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is >inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
There was probably a time when running for high office was something
that commanded respect. In some cases, it might still.
For example, do you not feel that Barack Obama did it for the best of
reasons, a desire to change America for the better, rather than to
make himself a lot of money?
Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is >> inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
> There was probably a time when running for high office was something
> that commanded respect. In some cases, it might still.
> For example, do you not feel that Barack Obama did it for the best of
> reasons, a desire to change America for the better, rather than to
> make himself a lot of money?
For sure, Obama is poorer than he would have been (for now) through being
president, though I suppose he'll make it up in later years on the lecture
circuit. I think Romney was probably also doing it for public service (I
like the joke, though, that his wife is relieved that she won't now have to
move to a smaller house).
>> Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is
>> inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
> There was probably a time when running for high office was something
> that commanded respect. In some cases, it might still.
> For example, do you not feel that Barack Obama did it for the best of
> reasons, a desire to change America for the better, rather than to
> make himself a lot of money?
One can have great respect for someone and still think they're a bit barking.
>>> Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is
>>> inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
>> There was probably a time when running for high office was something
>> that commanded respect. In some cases, it might still.
>> For example, do you not feel that Barack Obama did it for the best of
>> reasons, a desire to change America for the better, rather than to
>> make himself a lot of money?
> For sure, Obama is poorer than he would have been (for now) through being
> president, though I suppose he'll make it up in later years on the lecture
> circuit. I think Romney was probably also doing it for public service (I
> like the joke, though, that his wife is relieved that she won't now have to
> move to a smaller house).
I dunno why there's such a focus on money in this branch of the conversation. I didn't explicitly respond to Bru... er I mean Anthony's question above about Obama's motivations being something other than making himself a lot of money, because that's just too obvious. No-one who's running for the US presidency will be doing so out of a motivation for money.
(Perhaps Mitt wanted to wash away the guilt of being a filthily rich man?)
>> Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is
>> inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
> There was probably a time when running for high office was something
> that commanded respect.
Though is that just a modern (Victorian?) idea? It was probably much more interesting when you could grab as much power and loot as possible just for its own sake.
>>Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is
>>inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
> There was probably a time when running for high office was something
> that commanded respect. In some cases, it might still.
> For example, do you not feel that Barack Obama did it for the best of
> reasons, a desire to change America for the better, rather than to
> make himself a lot of money?
> (for some value of "better", obviously)
Surely this is not the poster formerly known as "Bruce" whose cynicism exceeded all devils' advocacy? A new man indeed!
Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No-one >who's running for the US presidency will be doing so out of a motivation >for money.
A truly naive attitude, given that Presidents Bush Snr and Jnr and of
course Vice President Cheney made very considerable sums of money
thanks to their being in office.
Perhaps you genuinely have no idea how corrupt US politics is. You
should be aware, because British politics is heading in a similar
direction.
>> No-one
>> who's running for the US presidency will be doing so out of a motivation
>> for money.
> A truly naive attitude, given that Presidents Bush Snr and Jnr and of
> course Vice President Cheney made very considerable sums of money
> thanks to their being in office.
There are probably easier and less stressful ways of making more money.
>> No-one who's running for the US presidency will be doing so out
>> of a motivation for money.
> A truly naive attitude, given that Presidents Bush Snr and Jnr and of
> course Vice President Cheney made very considerable sums of money
> thanks to their being in office.
> Perhaps you genuinely have no idea how corrupt US politics is. You
> should be aware, because British politics is heading in a similar
> direction.
Yeah yeah. The Bushes and Cheney may have made a packet when not in office, but that wasn't their motivation for being in office.
> >> No-one who's running for the US presidency will be doing so out
> >> of a motivation for money.
> > A truly naive attitude, given that Presidents Bush Snr and Jnr and of
> > course Vice President Cheney made very considerable sums of money
> > thanks to their being in office.
> > Perhaps you genuinely have no idea how corrupt US politics is. You
> > should be aware, because British politics is heading in a similar
> > direction.
> Yeah yeah. The Bushes and Cheney may have made a packet when not in
> office, but that wasn't their motivation for being in office.
Obama has made considerably more than his salary since taking office.
>>>> No-one who's running for the US presidency will be doing so out
>>>> of a motivation for money.
>>> A truly naive attitude, given that Presidents Bush Snr and Jnr and of
>>> course Vice President Cheney made very considerable sums of money
>>> thanks to their being in office.
>>> Perhaps you genuinely have no idea how corrupt US politics is. You
>>> should be aware, because British politics is heading in a similar
>>> direction.
>> Yeah yeah. The Bushes and Cheney may have made a packet when not in
>> office, but that wasn't their motivation for being in office.
> Obama has made considerably more than his salary since taking office.
Cite?
By the way Adrian, I'm glad to see you have now discovered what his surname is, there's hope for you yet.
The answer to everybody's question as to why <Person> wants to become President, Prime Minister, Pope, Chairman of the Peoples Republic is POWER. Oh and it gets the girls.
>>Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is
>>inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
>There was probably a time when running for high office was something
>that commanded respect. In some cases, it might still.
>For example, do you not feel that Barack Obama did it for the best of
>reasons, a desire to change America for the better, rather than to
>make himself a lot of money?
> in 1242925 20121108 163211 Anthony Polson<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mizter T<mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anyone who runs for US President (or the presidential nomination) is
>>> inherently a bit barking by my estimation.
>> There was probably a time when running for high office was something
>> that commanded respect. In some cases, it might still.
>> For example, do you not feel that Barack Obama did it for the best of
>> reasons, a desire to change America for the better, rather than to
>> make himself a lot of money?
Someone who is gung-ho about the "evils of Islam" and the "rights of gun-owners". I think we can safely assume that he is not a natural Obama supporter.
