If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Mitt Romney is running for the White House using the Jimmy Carter model   (salon.com) divider line 29
    More: Ironic, Mitt Romney, Jimmy Carter, human beings, White House, private economy, american liberalism, William Howard Taft, Richard Nixon  
•       •       •

2294 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Sep 2012 at 11:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-03 09:59:04 AM
And Obama is running the White House using the Jimmy Carter model.

/amidoinitright?
 
2012-09-03 10:03:58 AM

adamgreeney: And Obama is running the White House using the Jimmy Carter model.

/amidoinitright?


Well he is pro-beer like Carter.
 
2012-09-03 10:30:30 AM
When McKinley won the presidency in November 1896

If I had a nickel for every time McKinley's 1896 election influenced my vote, I'd be a rich woman.
 
2012-09-03 11:36:00 AM
Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.
 
2012-09-03 11:36:25 AM
Jimmy Carter did win.
Just sayin'.
 
2012-09-03 11:37:48 AM

adamgreeney: And Obama is running the White House using the Jimmy Carter model.

/amidoinitright?


No, see, since Obama is worse than even Carter was, using the Carter model against 'worse-than Carter' Obama is a winning strategy.
 
2012-09-03 11:46:16 AM

CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.


clip - The greatest presidents? Notable business failures almost to a man,

if they had any business experience at all. Abraham Lincoln racked up so many unpaid notes in his brief career as a storekeeper in New Salem, Illinois, that he referred to the obligations as his "national debt." For 15 years after his haberdashery in Kansas City went under, Harry Truman was still working to pay off his creditors, and was strapped for money until well into his career in the United States Senate. George Washington was a sharp-elbowed, tightfisted planter and entrepreneur (he owned a distillery!), but he spent so much time winning American independence and then inventing the job of president that his financial affairs were a mess by the end of his first term. As for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the spoiled country squire who led the nation through the Depression and World War II: it could be argued that, until he found his passion in politics, he never really worked a day in his life (even if he put in some desultory time as a Wall Street lawyer).

This is not to say that no successful businessmen have ever become president. A few have, among them Warren G. Harding (an Ohio newspaper publisher and editor), Herbert Hoover (a multi-millionaire mining engineer, investor, and consultant), and Jimmy Carter (a Georgia peanut farmer and warehouse owner).

But no one would argue that the one-term presidencies of Harding, Hoover, or Carter were anything close to successes

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/09/mitt-romney-business-crede n tials-problem
 
2012-09-03 11:48:33 AM
With lust in his heart?
 
2012-09-03 11:54:48 AM
Mitt's fortune ain't peanuts.
 
2012-09-03 12:06:38 PM

CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.


Um, because

t0.gstatic.com

"The business of America is business"
 


/yeah, I got nuthin'
 
2012-09-03 12:25:03 PM
Carter made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and failed completely.

Obama made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and succeeded completely.

It's exactly the same!
 
2012-09-03 12:27:18 PM

Nem Wan: Carter made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and failed completely.

Obama made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and succeeded completely.

It's exactly the same!


No, there's a key difference: Obama's mission succeeded, so he had nothing to do with it; Carter's mission failed, so it was entirely his fault.
 
2012-09-03 12:29:00 PM

Lionel Mandrake: CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.

Um, because

[t0.gstatic.com image 299x169]

"The business of America is business" 


/yeah, I got nuthin'


On the other hand, Eisenhower was excoriated when his Secretary of Commerce nominee said 'What's good for General Motors is good for America'.

/So yeah, got nothin'.
 
2012-09-03 12:42:31 PM
 
2012-09-03 12:48:12 PM
President Obama, Romney said, "took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business."

Um, what? Most Americans? I mean, working for a business I suppose is technically working in a business, but I don't see how flipping burgers grants much in the way of qualifications to a Presidential candidate. (I'd say humility, but it didn't seem to help Mr. Ryan at all.)
 
2012-09-03 12:58:36 PM
No. Romney isn't a socialist like Carter and 0bama.
Nice try.
 
2012-09-03 01:01:59 PM
Question: why do we suddenly care about Jimmy Carter? Thirty years have passed and it's hard to see how a one-term president with a lot of ideas deserves more hatred than the actions of a former actor whose delusional economic theories have sunk a great economic powerhouse and polluted national discourse to the point where we stand to be felled because some of our citizens are so bigoted they would believe anything you told them if it had enough slurs thrown in.

What's next from the Republicans? The comic stylings of the Unknown Comic? Veiled criticism from the stars of 'Outland?' Perhaps a stirring speech against all that 'lib' stuff from 'Maude?'
 
2012-09-03 01:06:48 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No. Romney isn't a socialist like Carter and 0bama.
Nice try.


Weren't you ordered on several occasions to look up "socialism" in a source other than Limbaughpedia?
 
2012-09-03 01:15:27 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: What's next from the Republicans? The comic stylings of the Unknown Comic?


Better than that chair guy.

"Hey, Mitty-Baby, Mitty-Baby!"
 
2012-09-03 02:03:01 PM

MFAWG: Lionel Mandrake: CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.

Um, because

[t0.gstatic.com image 299x169]

"The business of America is business" 


/yeah, I got nuthin'

On the other hand, Eisenhower was excoriated when his Secretary of Commerce nominee said 'What's good for General Motors is good for America'.

/So yeah, got nothin'.


Engine Charlie Wilson was Secretary of Defense, not Commerce, and that's one of the most frequently cited misquotes out there. What he really said, according to the Detroit Free Press:

Sen. Robert Hendrickson, R-N.J., asked Wilson whether, given his investments in GM, he could make a decision that would hurt the company.

Wilson's actual reply, in full:

"I cannot conceive of one, because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."

When you put it into the broader context, what Engine Charlie said remains true today, because it's a fundamental truism of economics:

"What is good for the country is good for business and what is bad for the country is bad for business."

TMYK...
 
2012-09-03 02:51:41 PM

CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.


Well, he knows how to run up astronomical debts and enrich himself regardless of if they can be paid back.
 
2012-09-03 04:06:25 PM

CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.


Living in a huge house with servants and a chef, a private airplane, and a limousine?
 
2012-09-03 04:07:32 PM

CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.


It keeps you from being black.
 
2012-09-03 05:21:43 PM

syrynxx: When McKinley won the presidency in November 1896

If I had a nickel for every time McKinley's 1896 election influenced my vote, I'd be a rich woman.


You have peculiar political influences.
 
2012-09-03 05:24:26 PM

Tusz: Nem Wan: Carter made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and failed completely.

Obama made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and succeeded completely.

It's exactly the same!

No, there's a key difference: Obama's mission succeeded, so he had nothing to do with it; Carter's mission failed, so it was entirely his fault.


To be fair, the US military neither had the training, equipment, or expertise to pull off the Iranian hostage rescue.
 
2012-09-03 05:25:41 PM

Harry_Seldon: Tusz: Nem Wan: Carter made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and failed completely.

Obama made a tough decision to deploy special forces on a high risk secret mission to eliminate an intolerable, prolonged insult to America, and succeeded completely.

It's exactly the same!

No, there's a key difference: Obama's mission succeeded, so he had nothing to do with it; Carter's mission failed, so it was entirely his fault.

To be fair, the US military neither had the training, equipment, or expertise to pull off the Iranian hostage rescue.


They did, but it would have entailed invasion and occupation.
 
2012-09-03 05:33:08 PM

Gyrfalcon: They did, but it would have entailed invasion and occupation.


I was only 15 at the time, but I do not recall that a serious option in the aftermath of the Vietnam War failure.

The reason you can pull off that type of surgical strike today is the amazing technological leaps in military technology, surveillance technology, and a commitment to training and maintaing elite forces. Even with all that, they still lost a super secret helicopter to the Chinese.
 
2012-09-03 05:51:48 PM

CPennypacker: Someone please tell me what knowledge or experience relevant to the presidency or the US economy in general is obtained by running a private equity firm.


Pretty much his major qualification goes back to the days when he was involved with the UMaine system, and when he went to the Olympics: when he controls cash from other people, he is really good at steering it towards people who will pay him back in one form or another. That goes for his stint as Governor--and that RomneyCare program steered a TON of public cash into the private firm coffers.

Folks are looking at a Romney Presidency as an investment. And if you wonder what over a billion in cash is going to buy an investor, that's exactly what you should be doing. In this case, money IS speech, and folks really need to listen to what these folks are saying...
 
2012-09-03 08:10:00 PM

Harry_Seldon: Gyrfalcon: They did, but it would have entailed invasion and occupation.

I was only 15 at the time, but I do not recall that a serious option in the aftermath of the Vietnam War failure.

The reason you can pull off that type of surgical strike today is the amazing technological leaps in military technology, surveillance technology, and a commitment to training and maintaing elite forces. Even with all that, they still lost a super secret helicopter to the Chinese.


It wasn't, and people today often forget that part of it.

One reason, despite all the finger-pointing and blame-laying about the hostage crisis, one reason--possibly the greatest unspoken reason--we didn't go in to Iran with guns blazing was the reluctance of the military and the policymakers to commit us to another ground war only four years after we'd gotten out of Vietnam. Nobody, from the President on down, wanted to be the one to tell the American people "Hey, guess what! We're going to try again, and I'm sure we'll get it right this time!" It's often overlooked in the other stated reasons for not attacking Iran, but one reason certainly was nobody wanted to sell that one to the public again.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report