Posted on 11/10/2007 6:19:29 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
"I love data." Mitt Romney has been speaking for less than two minutes when he makes this profession.
The former Massachusetts governor is meeting with the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal to discuss his campaign for the presidency. And he starts not with the economy, "global jihad" or the country as a whole, but with himself.
While some have questioned Mr. Romney's authenticity, the immediate impression he gives is that he speaks straight from the heart. Especially where data are concerned. "I used to call it 'wallowing in the data,' " Mr. Romney continues. "Let me see the data. I want to see the client's data, the competitors' data. I want to see all the data."
This is not only a description of his approach to business. It sums up his political outlook: "You may ask me questions about topics that I haven't studied in depth. I'll be happy to give you my assessment of what I think at this point. But before I would actually make a decision on a very important topic, I would really study it in depth."
At one level, this is a caveat so obvious that most politicians wouldn't bother offering it. But Mr. Romney gives the impression that this is a methodological first principle so important to how he does things that he wants everyone he meets to understand it about him.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Is “data” the reason for his liberal policis back in his state?
We tried this once with Robert S. McNamara. Someone remind me how that went...
LOL. Data kind of separates the human from well the human.
No one has to see the human with data.
One thing the data **WILL** tell you. We have too many government employees; we are paying too much for services we do not need or do not get; the Dept of Education can be abolished along with 20 or so other government organizations.
And that’s after the first 10 minutes.
So, true, conservative decision making should be what, uninformed?
I would venture to say yes. I like to call people like him “political weathervanes,” the types who would say and do anything to get elected.
So beware, people, if you elect Mitt Romney as your GOP nominee, you can be sure he will shift abruptly to the left as soon as his post is secure.
Romney can best be viewed as a computer composite of many past and present candidates. There is nothing genuine about him. His slick and calculated aping of the money bomb, used so effectively by Ron Paul, shows as much.
Are you old enough or informed enough to know who Robert Strange McNamera was? If not, look him up and get back to me.
He strikes me as a Northern version of Bill Clinton. While many here hate former President Clinton, viewed objectively, he mostly governed as a liberal to moderate republican, which is what former Governor Romney is, despite his recent protestations to the contrary.
"I will donate $30 or as much as I can afford on December 7th, 2007. My contribution will go straight to Mitt Romney’s campaign and help the campaign make the most money in the 4th Quarter of this year. My donation will represent $10 to strengthen the military, $10 to strengthen the economy, and $10 to strengthen the family!"
Come on cough it up. I'm tired of making my fundraising numbers even competitive with huge 'loans' to myself. How is giving Mitt $10 going to strengthen the family? Better yet why would a conservative need $10 to strengthen the family? And wouldn't giving my $10 to a business owner strengthen the local economy better?
You see Mitt, I give to Dr. Paul because not only is he about restoring liberty and freedom, he has a clear plan to do so. Two words that are only mentioned once on the page (and even then by someone else who didn't understand those two words either). You Mitt, OTOH see this as some sort of head of the class or king of the prom contest and are just parroting what seems 'popular'. To further exemplify your lack of ability to understand or think for yourself, you ask for donations on one of the worst days in this nation's history, whereas again not Dr. Paul but his supporters recommend donations on days that represent throwing off government, liberty, and freedom. I'd try to explain it to you and your 'consultant in chief' but it'd all be Greek to you.
I think Romney is more a hollow man (belief wise) than Clinton. Clinton’s natural default is on the left. In this sense he has something of a core. But Romney? He appears to have no natural default and is better viewed as an opportunistic creature.
Similar to Jimmy Carter’s attempt to bring Zero Based Budgeting to Congress. It was D.O.A. before he was sworn in.
Honestly, yes.
I have said this twenty times on FR. Mitt is a finacialist. He's a numbers guy. Comparisons to McNamara and even Jimmy Carter are apt. Both were more comfortable with numbers. Both thought the answerers were deeper in the data, and that if they had it, they would prevail. This works in science, engineering and finance. Not so much is squishier fields like politics.
But back to your question. Mitt looked at being elected in a liberal state as a problem that required certain imputs to be solved. One was to pitch the customers( voters ) what they wanted to hear, which for Mitt was better quality big government liberalism. He lost that sale to Ted the first time and more or less noticed that almost anyone could be Governor of Massachusetts as other than status there was little power or money to attractive the heavy hitters in state politics. But it was useful, or had hidden value to Mitt if he was going to use it as a required ticket punch for the national stage. So, Mitt told, and spent his way into the governorship.
He had zero coattails, did nothing to help anyone after and more or less, presided over the political hospice patient of the Massachusetts Republican party. He was done with them, and the state. Adios. Fin. Seeyah.
Now, Mitt has a different customer base with different needs and wants. Dutifully, Mitt is ready to supply the soothing song that makes them happy. Based upon past performance, when the deal is done, I expect him to move on to a larger, more diverse customer base, get the demographics data and adjust his sales strategy appropriately.
This is why Mitt is sometimes so goofballish, because he doesn't know what to say unless he gets some numbers on it. This is why it made sense for Mitt to put his dog on the roof of the car. Or that he was a hunter. In a way, Mitt is the opposite of Reagan who didn't worry about the details because he knew the big things he wanted, and he felt, rightly so, that he was in-tune with Americans and American values. Reagan had in film and real life, battled real enemies. He saw black and white. Mitt needs numbers, data. That is what has made him a financial success and I am sure he feels won him office, a victory I feel of filling a vacume or by default.
Is Mitt a conservative? A. If you want him to be, and B., if he wants your business. Assume nothing not contractually agreed upon. Accept nothing implied. Your performance may vary.
Well it does seem to be working for you.
But no, there rest of us are quite informed as Conservatives...
You should look into it.
Yikes...
Makes me skin crawl lad...
Thank you for a great explanation.
It fits very well with the data on Mitt.
Brilliant analysis. Give us more like these.
So, who is the alternative? Guiliani?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.