Former Enron advisor Paul Krugman draws on his seemingly non-existent business experience to explain to us that business experience does not prepare one for the White House:
A brief thought on something I’ll try to expand on later. Leaving aside all the questions about what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do at Bain — and about his self-aggrandizing double standard — there’s an even broader question: why does anyone believe that success in business qualified someone to make economic policy?
For the fact is that running a business is nothing at all like making macro policy. The key point about macroeconomics is the pervasiveness of feedback loops due to the fact that workers are also consumers. No business sells a large fraction of its output to its own workers; even very small countries sell around two-thirds of their output to themselves, because that much is non-tradable services.
This makes a huge difference. A businessman can slash his workforce in half, produce about the same as before, and be considered a big success; an economy that does the same plunges into depression, and ends up not being able to sell its goods. Nothing in business experience prepares one for the paradox of thrift, or even the inflationary impact of increases in the money supply (which is real when the economy isn’t in a liquidity trap.)
Oh, brother. Well, in 2008 Prof. Krugman backed Hillary, so we won't find him explaining why a career as a community organizer, law lecturer and auto-biographer prepares one for economic policy-making.
Secondly, if "macro policy" is broadened to include regulatory and tax policy, it is certainly plausible that a businessman who spent his career reflecting on the impact of those issues on his hiring decisions might have a more nuanced sense of just how lightly or heavily the hand of government actually falls. Since voters have a choice, the contrast would be with a chap who felt that his brief stint in the private sector represented a trip behind enemy lines.
Left-leaning economist Jared Bernstein lauds Krugman's insight, but reverses course with this anecdote:
So I asked a prominent business person–who was formerly a prominent gov’t official–about this and his response both cracked me up and had a ring of truth. Here’s what he essentially told me:
“What these whiners don’t understand is that if I or someone like me—someone from the business world—were in there right now, we’d be telling these business guys to get lost. You can’t make them happy and it’s no use trying. The irony is you’re already doing more for them then I’d advise and true to form, they don’t like you any better for it.”
Now, this guy was a democrat, and his view may not cross party lines. But it’s an interesting wrinkle. Maybe you need a business person who has the perspective and clout to tell you when to ignore business people.
Set a thief to catch a thief. Neuther Geithner nor Obama have ever worked for Wall Street and they never climbed out of Goldman Sachs' pocket either. Just saying.
MAKE IT SO: Krugman pretends to believe in the 'CEO as autocrat':
And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that presidents need to work with Congress, and face far more limits on their authority than CEOs.
The idea that what America needs now is an executive type is just foolish.
Uh huh. Here in reality, a CEO needs to negotiate with current and prospective clients, suppliers, employees, regulators and investors. If they head a large firm they also enjoy the satisfactin of dealing with an entrenched bureaucracy. It may not be quite as challenging as organizing a community (or writing TWO autobiographies!), but it ain't as easy as ordering people about.
AND SPEAKING OF GEITHNER:
I don't have enough tin foil to grasp this:
Ford Foundation Links Parents of Obama and Treasury Secretary Nominee
December 3, 2008, 1:00 pm
By Ian Wilhelm
In an unusual twist of fate, the parents of Barack Obama and his pick for secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, share a nonprofit connection: they worked at the Ford Foundation at the same time.
Indeed, Mr. Geithner’s father was head of the philanthropy’s Asia grant making for a period in the early 1980s and oversaw the work of Mr. Obama’s mother, who developed the organization’s microfinance programs in Indonesia.
According to the foundation, they met at least once in Jakarta.
No word on whether the two parents speculated on the future careers of their sons.
I'm sure our community organizer never saw this coming ...
Posted by: Neo | January 10, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Jared Bernstein is not an economist. He has a PhD in Social Welfare from Columbia, whatever that is. And was Slow Joe's Economic Advisor until last year.
He has less economic credentials the Slow Joe, who could at least raise money.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 10, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Krugman has as big an ego as Obama's. And his head is just as empty as Obama's on most issues.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | January 10, 2012 at 06:01 PM
"You can’t make them happy and it’s no use trying."
He could be talking about the Rev. Al and Jesse. Or the poverty industry. Or the rent-seekers in general.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 10, 2012 at 06:02 PM
the business elite in this country try to buy or rent every politician they can just like the unions do.
Obama is probably the biggest union whore of the past 50 years at a time when the unions have incredible clout. Can't wait to see the ads on that one, especially with his sweetheart deals with the UAW, SEIU, Machinists, and teachers. he has slipped hundreds of billions to his BFF's.
Romney is a corporate whore, but less a whore than Obama any day of the week.
Posted by: matt | January 10, 2012 at 06:10 PM
What was Krugman's take on whether military experience was an important credential for the presidency? Was it the same when Kerry ran as it was when McCain did?
Just asking.
Posted by: Clarice | January 10, 2012 at 06:19 PM
'He's not an economist, but he plays one on TV, and he did stay at a Holiday Inn, once'
He also was appointed the Executive Director of the Middle Class Working Families Task Force and is responsible for direct management of the project. Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate in economics and a noted liberal columnist, argued in November 2008 that, given the centrist makeup of President Barack Obama's economic inner circle, the new Economic Recovery Advisory Board could be used to "give progressive economists a voice," and mentioned Bernstein and fellow EPI economist, and EPI president, Lawrence Mishel among others as progressive economists who might be suitable for the board.[8
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2012 at 06:25 PM
OT But we are getting very close to emulating old Soviet law where factory managers faced criminal sanctions for not meeting quotas even though govt suppliers had not provided them with the wherewithal to do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=1
Posted by: Clarice | January 10, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Tom M is correct that Turbo Tax Timmie never "worked" for GS. Course GS -- through Hank Paulson-- put Timmie at the NY Fed just in time for TARP. One thing about Geither -- his dad gave Ford Foundation $$$ to 'Bam's mom while she was in Indonesia. Did any JOMer cite to this before? I am stunned by this 'Bam/Timmie family connection. from Wiki-- "His father, Peter F. Geithner, was the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York in the 1990s. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham Soetoro, President Barack Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once.[10]"
Posted by: NK | January 10, 2012 at 06:31 PM
But we don't need voter ID.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 10, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Wow, NK. Obama's circle only gets tighter, never looser.
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2012 at 06:35 PM
CC-- you didn't know about this either? TomM did you know this?
Posted by: NK | January 10, 2012 at 06:36 PM
NK, there are so many circles within circles when it comes to Obama, I honestly cannot remember them all. Glenn Beck in his Fox heydey was great at diagramming the generational relationships of Obama and his small group. Don't remember Geithner being brought up before, but narciso or Clarice might.
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2012 at 06:45 PM
There was this piece, on a thread from March 2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2208130/posts
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2012 at 06:46 PM
OMG-- the left-wing Ford Foundation got 'Bam into Occidental Col and Columbia U then passed him off to Bill Ayers? Oh man-- were's the Red Queen?, this is the Manchurian POTUS, it's like some kind of evil spawn of a leftwing orgy.
Posted by: NK | January 10, 2012 at 06:49 PM
I believe Clarice's link should be required reading for all voters. I'm trying to think of something that is stupider. I was thinking about the requirement for rabbits to be licensed, but at least the rabbits exist.
Posted by: pagar | January 10, 2012 at 06:57 PM
All over the blogosphere the learned are questioning the use of what they think is an obscure phrase, "net, net." That tells me that they simply have no experience in finance and didn't even take a class.
I feel certain that Obama would not know the meaning of the phrase or how it is used in real business.
Any takers?
Posted by: MarkO | January 10, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Then let's try "triple net" on him.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 10, 2012 at 07:09 PM
LOL DoT, LOL
Posted by: MarkO | January 10, 2012 at 07:11 PM
MarkO - careful with the use of LOL's, you don't want us thinking you are "Anne," ha ha ha.
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2012 at 07:37 PM
A half court has a net. A full court has a net net.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 10, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Enough mirth. We are limited to one LOL.
See, I told you. Doom.
Posted by: MarkO | January 10, 2012 at 07:41 PM
When you lost Harry Belefonte...
Posted by: Sara | January 10, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Todays WSJ has front page quotes from Gingrich and Huntsman attacking Romney for his Bain background. Gingrich says he was "looting" companies, which is precisely how every Dem attacks anybody who has ever worked in investment banking (it's how Dannel Malloy slandered Tom Foley here in CT, and that alone disqualifies Newt completely for me.
Huntsman says "Governor Romney enjoys firing people..." I have never been a huge Romney fan, but I'm warming to the guy. What we need in Washington more than anything else is a President who "enjoys firing people."
Then Romney blows it with a quote about "stating at the bottom...and worrying about whether he'd be able to hang on to his job." Probably out of context, but sheesh!
Posted by: Boatbuilder | January 10, 2012 at 07:53 PM
you can't play tennis without Annette.
Posted by: matt | January 10, 2012 at 07:59 PM
I owe TM a great debt. Because I hang up on the NYT any time they have the temerity to call about a home subscription after telling them how pitiful and small they are these days, I would never ever know what the great Paul Krugman has to say on any given issue. But nearly daily these days I am treated to a serving of the great man. How can I ever repay the debt?
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 08:02 PM
Fox is already calling the NH race with Romney at 36%, Ron Paul 25%, Huntsman 17%. Polls closed at 8 PM EST.
Posted by: Sara | January 10, 2012 at 08:03 PM
I don't believe I have ever visited the Ron Paul anything, but Google lists this as a link on Peter F Geithner. It has some different stuff in it than the link Narciso put up or the AIM 2009 article.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?191373-Obama-s-MOTHER-worked-for-Geithner-s-FATHER-in-Indonisia...Oh-What-a-Tangled-Web...
"Now you can see why China is lending us all this money for Socialist/Marxist agendas? China knows that if the US is to become Socialist/Marxist, our country will no longer lead the world in innovation and technology. China has their own plans for world "hemogany". In fact, Chinese leaders know that Communism doesn't work, and this is why they have adopted a simulation model of Western government through their "Strategic Moderization Objective"."
"There is also a solid link between the Islamic Banking Cooperative, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Ford Foundation, Devron Bank of Chicago and the Bank of Indonesia (Stanley A. Dunham was a research coordinator at this bank and a program officer for the Ford Foundation)".
Posted by: pagar | January 10, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Obama seeing 28% of the voters in the primary desert him for someone else! Uh oh spaghetti ohs...
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Does this mean they're finally going to stop quoting Warren Buffett at us all the time?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 10, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Boatbuilder: Everything I've read about Romney says he is the guy who always excels which pleases his employers, although I think his first paying job was as a security guard at Chrysler. However, I still find it hard to see him doing anything that would get him fired. I do think that anyone who has spent 2 1/2 years of his life trying to convince the wine drinking French to become alcohol abstaining Mormons has experienced his share of rejection in life. :)
Posted by: Sara | January 10, 2012 at 08:12 PM
"we come not to praise Krugman, but to laugh at him' Meanwhile, there's a bit of a disconnect here;
http://bigpeace.com/ipt/2012/01/10/terror-plot-in-tampa-cair-defends-suspect/
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2012 at 08:13 PM
"stating at the bottom...and worrying about whether he'd be able to hang on to his job."
Net, net self analysis or the opinion of a hand picked advisory team?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 10, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Clarice - That biofuel article was written by Matthew Wald, who, in the past, has been in favor of energy sources that didn't work, and opposed to energy sources that do.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 10, 2012 at 08:19 PM
It hasn't been much commented on, but why did Todd Palin come out for Gingrich on the eve of Romney taking NH with Gingrich tanking and not even in the running? Seriously. Todd's not a loose cannon free agent. He's been plotting with Sarah all along. Was that some sort of misdirection play?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 10, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Interesting. According to the exit poll, Romney is getting 45 percent of the Republican vote.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 10, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Well it wasn't for New Hampshire, clearly, I imagine it's for the latter states,
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2012 at 08:27 PM
Zero down to 42% approval in Gallup today. Since that is not LV, he is doing even worse when you screen for likely voters. I may have been too generous earlier saying he will get in the low to mid 40s.
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 08:46 PM
And, again according to the exit polls, Ron Paul won the liberal vote, barely.
But you can say that the more conservative the vote, the less likely they were to vote for Paul.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 10, 2012 at 08:46 PM
Rick--definitely the advisory team. Only highly qualified professionals posess the genius to conclude that Mitt can take this thing if he can convince Everyman that he feels their pain.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | January 10, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Controller Chiang's California Doomin' Report came out today.
Pertinent section:
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 10, 2012 at 08:54 PM
This Prager video linked from Instapundit is wonderful.
Posted by: Janet | January 10, 2012 at 08:56 PM
Romney should accept that being filthy rich is part of his political profile, and treat it as a virtue, istead of this "I'm really a regular guy" crap. Being filthy rich, he's beholden to nobody. Say so. Look at Bloomberg. Nobody seems to resent or hold it against him that he has more money than God. Or the Kennedys. Or Schwartzenegger. Or Rockefeller, Roosevelt, etc.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | January 10, 2012 at 09:01 PM
Zero down to 42% approval in Gallup today. Since that is not LV, he is doing even worse when you screen for likely voters. I may have been too generous earlier saying he will get in the low to mid 40s.
That would hold normally, but I am not sure it applies to Obama. I actually think Obama goes up slightly with a LV screen because of the higher education of LVs. All those BAs and MAs that the Ben-Danas of the world have cranked out over the last half a decade will still vote for Obama either out of "guilt" or a desire for "social justice." The people who have turned hardest on Obama are the HS grads who are suffering the most from Obama's efforts to "transform America."
Posted by: Ranger | January 10, 2012 at 09:02 PM
Off political candidate news for a moment.
Just southwest of us is Harris Ranch. A cattle operations with a fabulous restaurant outpost on a desolate stretch of I-5. They raise Angus beef cattle and supply markets, restaurants, etc. over a wide area.
Activists (okay, domestic terrorists) torched 14 of their trucks and they are making noise that this is just the first strike against the "enemy."
This country is getting scarier by the day.
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Ranger
Whether they stay home or vote for a Massachusetts Moderate, they are not voting for Zero. With no significant opponent he only gets 80% in the Democrat primary? Skidmarks, I am telling you.
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Except last time the RV/LV were about four to five points against Obama.
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2012 at 09:07 PM
Dont forget the Jay Cost analysis of a few weeks ago that demonstrated that sitting President tend to underperform their approval rating. Disapprove is a no. But a slice of approve still dont vote for ya. Sucks for Zero but that the facts.
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Gmax,
I definately think Obama is toast, I just think it will be closer to 45-46% that he gets. I would love it to be down around 42%, because it would be a humiliation that would crush him and ensure he is treated like Carter was when he lost, as well as be the kind of mandate the next president and congress need to undo everything Obama has done domesticly.
Posted by: Ranger | January 10, 2012 at 09:19 PM
Ranger, no matter what the percentage (as long as it is on the losing side), Obama will be treated worse than Carter when he loses. He was the "One" - and he quickly became "Zero."
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2012 at 09:27 PM
Clinton managed to pull it out with 42% of the vote because of Perot. What scares me is if they are torching trucks, bringing rats and disease to Washington, DC and other cities, and forcing small business owners out of business like those restaurants in NYC, how much longer before one of them decides to pull a Sirhan Sirhan on one of the Republican candidates? Every time I see one of these candidates being mobbed, I hold my breath. When I hear how campaign events had to be canceled or cut short because of protestors, I get a shiver. How many of these crackpot Jarod Loughners are out there?
Posted by: Sara | January 10, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Centralcal, that 9:05 link is scary.
Posted by: pagar | January 10, 2012 at 09:43 PM
OK, everybody's come in with an opinion of what the "Likely Voter" share will be, but I've seen no forecasts for the manufactured vote. I would like some serious thought put to this margin.
I know Milwaukee County will come in at 104%. Cook County will be under 100%. Are there any other thoughts on this?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 10, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Yeah, pagar. Talk radio and local news media are all worried about what it may portend.
We live in troubling times. Us v. Them. My biggest fear is that Obama and his acolytes have increased the numbers of "Them" while we were...where in the Hell were we, again? Nitpicking each other?
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2012 at 09:53 PM
Romney is leading in polls, has more local endorsements, and raised more money in the state [Utah] than Huntsman.
The people who know him best don't like Huntsman so much either.
Posted by: Sara | January 10, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Anyone seen any actual numbers on the Democratic primary in New Hampshire?
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 10, 2012 at 10:14 PM
The comments are the worst, cc. Only one person takes the criminals and the supporters to task.
Posted by: Frau Genug-ist-genug | January 10, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Sara, we get it, you love Romney.
Do you really think your pom-pom bonbons are making us love him too?
Posted by: mockmook | January 10, 2012 at 10:19 PM
CNN focus group with "undecideds", first guy:
If Ron Paul isn't the nominee, I'm voting for Obama.
Posted by: mockmook | January 10, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney last Presidential election. What makes him a Republican exactly?
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Mel
The buses can stay in Chicago this election, you must produce ID in Wisconsin to vote this go around. They will have to figure out a new way to cheat, that wont work.
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Mockmook:
First, your name is really hard to type after having my evening cocktail! ::grin::
Second, you are a really astute commenter.
Third: Sara thinks "others who shall go unnamed" shake the pom-poms. ha ha ha ha ha. Go figure!
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2012 at 10:35 PM
"Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney last Presidential election. What makes him a Republican exactly?"
He isn't, not really He's a RINO, a genuine RINO, or, as I prefer to say, he's a parasite on the Republican party.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM
matt, if you truly consider Romney a corporte whore, would it be hard to vote for him, if he is the candidate?
When I see online trashing of Romney elsewhere, I often wonder if those posting are Axelturf paid tools. It's usually about his being rich and a Mormon.
Posted by: Frau Genug-ist-genug | January 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Extraneus:
"It hasn't been much commented on, but why did Todd Palin come out for Gingrich on the eve of Romney taking NH with Gingrich tanking and not even in the running?"
I don't know, but Palin herself also came out and said that Romney was the candidate the Obama wanted to run against and that the press would make it so, which I'd read as an endorsement of Anybody But Romney.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 10, 2012 at 10:57 PM
You are too kind, cc.
Yeah, I finally hit pom-pom overload.
Posted by: mockmook | January 10, 2012 at 11:02 PM
matt, my second remark did not refer to your comment. I respect your opinions. I just wondered about it as many here have declared ABO.
Posted by: Frau Genug-ist-genug | January 10, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Slightly OT but my spidey sense says the SCOTUS is getting sick and tired of Administration overreach and is about to, pardon the expression, lay down the law.
Posted by: Clarice | January 10, 2012 at 11:09 PM
That would be likely in the VRA case on Texas as its up and a very hanging curve. Greg Abbott thinks Texas wins, so you might see a Roberts court put the lumber to Holder and Obama in the very same case...
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Like many,I am so disappointed in Perry. He's lost that Texan feeling.
As for the Tea Party,I wish there had been a clear TP candidate. That didn't happen and we resume attention to the states. Utah turned in Bennett for Mike Lee last time and now two have come forward to face Hatch in the primary. He is very powerful here, but at least we will have options.
CC,I feel your pain.
Posted by: caro | January 10, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Should be be letting Iowa and NH be picking our candidates? And should a primary for a party to be open to all comers, or should you be at least nominally a member of the party. Paul support is the cult he built, but its greatly augmented by Democrats in NH.
Posted by: Gmax | January 10, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Heading off to bed, but here's a real fun story.
http://bisserjeta.hsara.com/2012/01/100-year-old-prostitute-still-going-strong/
Posted by: Clarice | January 10, 2012 at 11:18 PM
What are you talking about Mock-Mock? I've posted news stories about Gingrich, Paul, the last one on Huntsman. You can support anyone you want, just as I can. That's the beauty of America. You sound like a sore loser to me, which is too bad, since we really don't have room for any sore losers if we plan to win in the General.
Posted by: Sara | January 10, 2012 at 11:29 PM
((One of my last clients, bless him, was a shy computer programmer, and he set up a Facebook page for me, which really helps to set up appointments since I can only cover about 30 metres of pavement in a day nowadays, and that’s with my Zimmer frame.))
Ha ha, Clarice, a great laugh on one's birthday.
Posted by: caro | January 10, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Jim Miller, thanks for the beautiful look at Ranier. We are really desperate for snow here.
I was born in Seattle, BTW.
Posted by: caro | January 10, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Janet, that was a great video of Prager. I think I might support whoever he is supporting.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 10, 2012 at 11:40 PM
One of the best dibs I ever called: Darrell Issa
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 10, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Happy Birthday, caro! Let the snowing begin!
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM
test
Posted by: daddy | January 11, 2012 at 01:49 AM
I'm sorry, I just can't help it. Jim DeMint agrees with me:
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 11, 2012 at 02:39 AM
In my usual day late/$ short, here is the infamous Czars Czuk along with a certain Birthday Girl and her artistic 'Sailor's Hat'.
Posted by: Manuel Transmission | January 11, 2012 at 03:29 AM
Clarice,
You made my day!
Posted by: Barbara | January 11, 2012 at 04:21 AM
When is TM going to realize he's really sparing with Robyn Krugman, not Paul?
Paul, is about the most nurtured male there is and it is his wife who really writes the column, or it doesn't get printed without her sign off.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | January 11, 2012 at 04:44 AM
Thanks for the picture, Manuel Transmission!
Posted by: Janet | January 11, 2012 at 07:31 AM
Dang, I keep missing ts. If only I didn't need to sleep.
I loved all of that Maltese story though it's so perfect I wonder if it wasn't made up.
Posted by: Clarice | January 11, 2012 at 07:38 AM
I'm a little late to this discussion but want to echo what I think is the important element of Tom's post: Romney needs to stop trying to stress that his experience 'creating' jobs qualifies him to be President. We all know Presidents don't create jobs. Romney should stress that he alone among the candidates (including Obama) knows the debilitating effects government regulation, tax hikes and a President who practices crony capitalism and wants to stomp on the necks of those he dislikes have on the confidence of businesses and entrepreneurs... and that he alone knows what needs to be done to restore confidence. Romney can stress that he knows how to get business to start spending their record piles of cash... and that Obama's demonizing business isn't the way to do it.
More details here
Posted by: steve | January 11, 2012 at 08:50 AM
Right, JMH. But deMint said a *conservative* Senate, not just a Republican one. Without conservative enthusiasm for the person at the top of the ticket, that task is going to be much more difficult.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 11, 2012 at 08:55 AM
You sound like a sore loser to me, which is too bad, since we really don't have room for any sore losers if we plan to win in the General.
Sara,
Of course you can support anyone you like. But if your goal here at JOM is to bring people over to your chosen candidate, you might want to think about another approach.
However, if that is not your goal, by all means, have at it.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 11, 2012 at 08:59 AM
According to Paul Krugman, we shouldn't trust, and we must raise taxes on, anyone who lives in a house like this:
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/paul-krugmans-house/
Need I say more?
Posted by: MarkJ | January 11, 2012 at 09:25 AM
Sara:
The Romney anti-mystique is certainly a phenomenon -- and its something Romney's advisors had better figure out. I'm not sure the correctives that would satisfy the average JOM anti-Romney person would work best in the general election, but Romney is going to have to work very hard, at the very least, persuading his right flank that he means the Conservative things coming out of his mouth.
I am curious, though (and this is to you, Porchlight), what would do that for you?
Posted by: Appalled | January 11, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Appalled,
It wouldn't really change my mind about what Romney believes (if that makes sense). But it might persuade me that he's can build a proper coalition within the Republican party, both during and beyond the campaign.
Beyond that, I'd just like to see him make stronger arguments. Everyone says he can mount a ringing defense of capitalism in response to the Bain accusations, but where is that defense? So far he's shown no indication that he is able or even willing to mount it.
I look at him and I see a tough campaigner in terms of self-control and sharp jabs to (GOP) opponents, but a poor candidate in terms of being able to state clear views and persuade. I'm increasingly scared he's going to lose to Obama.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM
caro - You're welcome. I was lucky to capture that Mt. Rainier picture when I did, since it lasted for just a few minutes.
(I'm leaving it up on the main page, in case others want to look at it.)
Today, tomorrow, and, probably, Friday, should be good days for seeing Rainier, and St Helens through the web cams. St. Helens is often especially pretty at sunrise and sunset.
(I have links to all the web cams at my site.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Tom Friedman's house is much the same. (His wife's family was very rich.)
Posted by: Clarice | January 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Cross-posting this. ChaCo's mother passed away this morning, age 77.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | January 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM
"...because it would be a humiliation that would crush him and ensure he is treated like Carter was when he lost..."
Wouldn't one have to possess, y'know, actual humility to feel humiliation?
Trust me, Bammy will be feted by all the right people once he's out of office--mercifully a little more than a year from now--for the rest of his life. Who knows, he may wise up and try to start scoring as much cooter as Slick.
Posted by: lyle | January 11, 2012 at 01:45 PM
Posted by: cathyf | January 11, 2012 at 02:06 PM
Thanks for the picture, Manuel Transmission!
And the memories. That was truly a great day.
Posted by: Jane | January 11, 2012 at 02:13 PM
cathyf - as a former 4H leader, I sure hope not. Can you imagine the damage they could do at County fairs? Or maybe they will scope out country roads and start torching dairies? Actually, very little seems off limits to these thugs.
Posted by: centralcal | January 11, 2012 at 02:22 PM
I haven't watched it, but over at Daily Caller they have an O'Keefe video of the Live Free or Die state handing out ballots in the names of dead people. Apparently, NH is not a voter ID state?
Posted by: centralcal | January 11, 2012 at 02:27 PM
sorry - the above comment was meant for a different thread. sigh.
Posted by: centralcal | January 11, 2012 at 02:28 PM