Friday, September 28, 2012

Why Romney Must Win and Why He Will Lose

Mike Allen, Jonathan Martin and Jim Vandehei, writing the lead, in depth, story today in Politico, have managed to encapsulate both the reasons Romney would be a great President, ready on day one to take on the country's problems, AND the reasons Romney cannot possibly win. It's both a sobering and eye opening article.

Even the article title says it all: In the End, It's Mitt

I'll limit myself to just a few small quotes. Please read the entire article.

It kills his admirers to say it because they know him to be a far more generous and approachable man than people realize — far from the caricature of him being awkward or distant — and they feel certain he would be a very good president. 
“Lousy candidate; highly qualified to be president,” said a top Romney official. “The candidate suit fits him unnaturally. He is naturally an executive.” 
That comment captures precisely why his closest confidants think he is a much better, bigger and more qualified man than often comes through on the trail. He treats his staff with respect, works hard on his weaknesses and does all of it because he possesses supreme confidence in his capacity to lead effectively.

Yet many of the folks who are despairing about Romney
[campaign weaknesses] would actually love what he would do in office. Romney’s metric-obsessed transition team is fleshing out a “200-day plan” (100 days wasn’t enough time to pass a bunch of big bills) aimed at goosing the recovery and creating jobs by bringing corporate cash off the sidelines in the United States and attracting investment from abroad. 
The weapons would include tax and regulatory policy and what one aide called a “very aggressive” series of executive orders, many already on the drawing board. Two of Romney’s friends told POLITICO he would be eager to sign a bipartisan grand bargain in the first four months in office to calm markets and ease partisan tensions.

4 comments:

shoo said...

I agree the Mitt will be a far better President than many believe. I disagree that he will lose. He is running better in the polls than Ronald Reagan was at this point in the election. This will be no electoral landslide like 1980 was: states like Californa and New York are not going to go for Mitt. But, I am willing to bet he will not only win, he will win by a substantial margin in the popular vote.

...and I put my money where my mouth is: sports books in Europe are giving 3-1 odds against Romney.

shoo said...

I agree the Mitt will be a far better President than many believe. I disagree that he will lose. He is running better in the polls than Ronald Reagan was at this point in the election. This will be no electoral landslide like 1980 was: states like Californa and New York are not going to go for Mitt. But, I am willing to bet he will not only win, he will win by a substantial margin in the popular vote.

...and I put my money where my mouth is: sports books in Europe are giving 3-1 odds against Romney.

Bob Keller said...

Shoo - I hope you're right. Obviously I'm all in for Romney (or, more technically correct, AGAINST Obama).

If the media, for just 24 hours, would fairly cover President Obama he could not possibly be re-elected.

shoo said...

Yeah, the media is what I am most frustrated by. Fast and Furious would have brought down any Republican administration, and the media pretty much ignores it. Same for the cover up going on over the assassination of the Ambassador to Libya. I really wish we had a source of news we really could consider fair and unbiased.