Romney's looking good

[Michael Tee]

Just watched some of his victory speech tonight.  He hammered hard on Michigan economic issues and he looked good.  Easy to see why he won big.  He tells Michiganders he's gonna fight to get their jobs back.  McCain tells them, some jobs ain't never comin back.   Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.  People want a fighter, not a defeatist.  First of all, who's got a crystal ball?  Who's dumb enough to say "Never" to people's hopes and dreams?  That's NOT what they want to hear.  Romney didn't edge out McCain, he kicked his ass - - 39% to 30%, according to CNN's call.  McCain, the little prick, will probably claim that he lost because of his "straight talk."  Seems to me there's a fine line where "straight talk" becomes negativity and defeatism.  Mitt looked youthful, enthusiastic and energized.  McCain by comparison, old, tired, unimaginative, defeated before the starter even fired his pistol.  Hope he loses big-time.  He's a tired old political hack and it's really showing.

[BT]

Romney is a native and the son of a popular former governor.

McCain told the truth, some jobs won't come back.

[Michael Tee]

<<McCain told the truth, some jobs won't come back.>>

Only time will tell what the truth is.  A protectionist policy would bring those jobs back pretty fast.  My point isn't that protectionism is the answer, only that jobs left because of policy and jobs can be brought back because of policy.  It's a long shot, but there may be a policy other than protectionism, just waiting to be discovered, which could bring the jobs back.

The voters don't like to hear from some old, white-haired guy that he's not even gonna try, that he's beaten before he starts.  They would rather hear from some young (relatively young) black-haired guy with some bounce in his step and some vibrancy in his voice that he's gonna give it his best shot.

IMHO, people want a champion, a fighter.  They don't want some tired, old manager of fighters who's wise enough and cynical enough to know that it can't be done.  Hope is a powerful campaigner.

[BT]

Clinton said the same thing in 92.

He said the jobs you had working with your muscles won't come back. The jobs you get working with your brain, will stay,  and he promised to help in the transition.

[Michael Tee]

I think there was a difference.  Clinton's emphasis was in fighting for the new types of jobs - - people must have responded to something they liked and trusted in Clinton: his intelligence, his promise of a fight for their (new) jobs.  I think they saw an intelligence that was keen, resourceful, forward-looking and fighting.

Somehow McCain's message, however it was meant, struck me as tired, old and hackneyed - - he wouldn't bother to fight for the old jobs to come back, that was the part that he emphasized when he spoke of the old muscle-powered jobs, but  then there wasn't a whole lot of fire in his belly when he paid the customary lip service to looking for the new.  It could have been something as simple as misplaced emphasis.

Or maybe it just comes down to popular perception of the messenger.  McCain: old and tired, unimaginative, a little out of it.  Romney, Bill Clinton:  Younger, better looking, resourceful, indefatigable, more dynamic and natural speakers, etc.  Is it fair?  I think so - - if a guy's still full of piss and vinegar and his opponent is a tired out hack, it'll show.  The voters are entitled to choose even on such superficialities, and they may not be all that superficial either.

[BT]

Well i agree that voters are free to choose the young energetic politician who promises blue sky and false hope.

And i don't plan on voting for McCain, i just appreciate him telling the truth.

[_JS]

I want to make two points.

1. The Democrats were real assholes to the people of Michigan. So they moved their primary to January? They are going to completely ignore a traditionally Democratic and unionized state? That leads me to #2

2. Yes Clinton did tell them exactly what Bt said. But, Clinton also helped to do exactly what he said would happen. The New Democrats adopted the economics of the right, which turned their backs on the labor unions, the manufacturing working class, and the high unemployment in the inner cities (like say...Detroit). So how much of Clinton's speech was prognostication and how much was facilitated by his own policies is debatable.

Those jobs didn't have to leave. The United States could have manufacturing, but we chose to follow Reagan/Thatcher on the path to a service-oriented economy.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I fail to see why either party should insist on all campaigns beginning in Iowa and NH. I don't think it is farl that the Democratic Party OR the Republican Party should punish Michigan or Florida or anyone.

Michigan is more important both population-wise, and economy-wise than NH or IA, and Florida is more important than Michigan, but the Democratic Party has said our votes won't count, because they jumped the gun whgen they rescheduled their primary earlier.

I am all for one national primary or several regional primaries. The current mess is intolerable.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Michael, for once you and I agree. 

Mitt is the only one I continue to send money too.

One thing that bothers me is Mitt is being portrayed today as "well now he won one"
Like it's all even.
Even?
Uh, excuse me, Michigan is a major, major state in any national election.
Sorry Michigan is not New Hampshire. No one lives in NH.

I get frustrated with my fellow republicans voting for all these boobs that wouldn't have a chance to win.
Agree again Michael, JOHN MCCAIN couldn't get elected DOG CATCHER in a national election.
John McCain is a patriot, a hero, a seemingly good man, BUT
He's old, he looks likes he's 70!, he's boring, he's a Bob Dole makeover, which means LOSER.

It will be fun for me to watch if Mitt gets some momentum
and Hillary & Obama continue to pretend it's all about race
all of a sudden the liberal media would be all about "OMG we gotta stop Mitt".

[_JS]

Is McCain more boring than Romney?

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Is McCain more boring than Romney?"

I can only speak for myself but I would not trust your opinions AT ALL about republican candidate's pros and cons because you are EXTREMELY biased to the point where honestly would come into play, in other words although we are all biased to differing degrees, I consider you incapable of an honest assessment of candidate viability of those whom you sharply disagree with.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't see what Romney has going for him. McCain is ancient, but he is somewhat more honest tha Romney about what he believes and he bullshits people less.  I really don't see how the GOP has any chance of winning in 2008, as they stuck us with Juniorbush and Cheney for eight years. The GOP is far more wasteful of tax money than the Democrats: pissing away millions per hour in Iraq is in no way responsible.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't see what Romney has going for him.>>

You had to see his victory speech.  He LOOKS good and he SOUNDS good.   You get an impression of vitality, intelligence and competence.  He told Michiganders he was going to FIGHT for their old jobs back.

By contrast, McCain looked old, tired, weak and out of shape.

Not only that, Romney gave the impression of being prepared, whereas McCain seems to be just winging it.  He really doesn't look anywhere near as bright as Romney, and I'm quite sure (based on their respective backgrounds) that he's not.

I think what Romney has going for him is good looks, intelligence, energy, moderation, a solid track record in turning around failed companies (which resonates with Americans saddled for eight years with a failed government) and also what he's NOT - - he's not a pig-headed, flag-waving militarist and war-monger (McCain) or a religious nut-case (the Huckster) or a bald-headed philandering New Yorker tied to every neo-con group in America.

His one weak point is his alleged inconsistency, which I think will hurt him the most with conservative Christian groups, who are really just looking for True Believers to support.  For the rest of the electorate, I don't think consistency will be much of an issue, certainly it won't be the deal-breaker.  People's attitudes can change over time, also at a more sophisticated level, politics might be considered more a matter of forging alliances than of deeply-held beliefs, and a good political leader should be prepared to switch alliances (as long as he hasn't given any binding committments,)  just as a good businessman is prepared to seek out the most advantageous deal at any particular moment in time, unless he's locked into a long-term binding contract.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Are these the words of Michael I am reading?

Quite a surprise, even-though obviously you are on the other end of the spectrum
you are quite honest, insightful, and very aware of the upsides of one Mitt Romney.

IMO most political people are not capable of that kind of honesty.

[Michael Tee]

Well, thanks - - I can't be 100% wrong all the time, I guess.