Ann Romney: "We've given all you people need to know."

[_Kevin Graham]

I agree that contracted prisons are a terrible idea in principle that has gone horribly in practice.

Ya think?

[_Chap]

A global super-rich elite had at least $21 trillion (£13tn) hidden in secret tax havens by the end of 2010, according to a major study.

The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined.

My goodness!

You mean, many rich people have found out that there are ways of getting all the benefits of living in the societies they prefer without having to make a contribution to them remotely proportional to their income?

And they have decided to make use of those ways?

It just can't be true. They wouldn't do that because they would know it was wrong.

[_krose]

Interesting post:

I don't think that Obama has been a very good president and I definitely think that a CEO is generally better qualified to be President than a constitutional law professor.

Bain Consulting and SLOC are somewhat similar stories: both involved troubled entities where Romney swooped in and turned things around in a relatively short period of time. In both cases, I think his efforts were impressive.

Do you think what he did there translates in any meaningful way to the job he's trying to get now? Granted, a president is essentially the CEO of the executive branch. But most of his job is dealing with the two other branches that have at least as much power as he does. CEO skills don't seem to help with this.

Obama certainly ran into this problem. His President resume consists mainly of a long list of things that he tried to accomplish, but were blocked by filibusters.


As for me, for several cycles now, I have been choosing presidents based almost exclusively on whom they would appoint to the courts, especially the Supremes. (I based this on the idea that presidents don't really affect much else. They have little, if any, effect on the economy.) Anyway, Romney says he wants more like Thomas and Scalia. No thanks.

[_Equality]

I don't think that Obama has been a very good president and I definitely think that a CEO is generally better qualified to be President than a constitutional law professor.

Historically, how does the record of CEOs who became President stand up against the record of academics? Are there enough data points to draw any conclusions? Is running a business like running a country? Is anything like running a country for that matter? If considering past experience as predictive of future success in the Oval Office, would any experience be superior to four years as President? I mean, it's not really a race between a former law professor and a CEO. It's a race between someone who has been President for four years and a CEO. All other things being equal, someone who has actually been President is always going to be more experienced at running the country than someone who has not, right?

[_sock puppet]

I don't think that Obama has been a very good president and I definitely think that a CEO is generally better qualified to be President than a constitutional law professor.

Historically, how does the record of CEOs who became President stand up against the record of academics? Are there enough data points to draw any conclusions? Is running a business like running a country? Is anything like running a country for that matter? If considering past experience as predictive of future success in the Oval Office, would any experience be superior to four years as President? I mean, it's not really a race between a former law professor and a CEO. It's a race between someone who has been President for four years and a CEO. All other things being equal, someone who has actually been President is always going to be more experienced at running the country than someone who has not, right?

All other things being equal,... then yes.

I think that Reagan's first year as president (1981) was significantly better than Carter's 4th year (1980) and what could reasonably have been anticipated in a 5th Carter year had he won re-election. Similarly, Clinton's first year (1993) was much improved over Bush I's 4th year (1992).

Also, I think in both Carter's and Bush I's cases, they had better earlier years in their presidencies than their 4th years. On-the-job experience is not always a plus. Sometimes people sour from time in a high-stress position. That was certainly the case with Carter who took office in January 1977 exuding so much optimism, but by 1979 had become the country's Pessimist in Chief.

And the problem is in trying to compare CEO experience with law professor experience, all other things are never equal.

[_DrW]

As for me, for several cycles now, I have been choosing presidents based almost exclusively on whom they would appoint to the courts, especially the Supremes. (I based this on the idea that presidents don't really affect much else. They have little, if any, effect on the economy.) Anyway, Romney says he wants more like Thomas and Scalia. No thanks.

Interesting. An unconventional, but certainly defensible, point of view.

How many appointments can we expect in the next 4 years, though?

(I guess if these are your criteria, it really doesn't matter.)

[_Kishkumen]

How many appointments can we expect in the next 4 years, though?

I would be surprised if there were not at least one.

[_EAllusion]

Ginsburg is barely hanging on. She's gone in the next administration probably. Definitely if Obama is reelected. Scalia is dying on the bench, but he's getting up there for someone who has been obese for a while. If he died of a massive heart attack tomorrow I wouldn't be shocked.

It's now a matter of course for Republican candidates to claim they want more Thomas's and Scalia's. Bush said the same thing and he appointed one Scalia out of two chances. It's hard to match up Romney's rhetoric to what his actions will actually be because he's such a blank slate. McCain I was fairly certain was going to appoint Scalia's because that obviously was a compromise he made with the religious right in the election season. Romney, I'm not so sure. Outside of the justices being conservative, it's anybody's guess as far as I'm concerned.

[_sock puppet]

Ginsburg is barely hanging on. She's gone in the next administration probably. Definitely if Obama is reelected. Scalia is dying on the bench, but he's getting up there for someone who has been obese for a while.

It's now a matter of course for Republican candidates to claim they want more Thomas's and Scalia's. Bush said the same thing and he appointed one Scalia out of two chances. It's hard to match up Romney's rhetoric to what his actions will actually be because he's such a blank slate. McCain I was fairly certain was going to appoint Scalia's because that obviously was a compromise he made with the religious right in the election season. Romney, I'm not so sure. Outside of the justices being conservative, it's anybody's guess as far as I'm concerned.

I suspect Romney would be less interested in ideology of appointees, but more interested in giving those positions as favors in return for campaign support. That's how 'business' works, and Romney's a businessman.

[_krose]

As for me, for several cycles now, I have been choosing presidents based almost exclusively on whom they would appoint to the courts, especially the Supremes..

Interesting. An unconventional, but certainly defensible, point of view.

I think it's one of the few things a president does that directly affects our lives.

I suspect Romney would be less interested in ideology of appointees, but more interested in giving those positions as favors in return for campaign support. That's how 'business' works, and Romney's a businessman.

Regardless of his own flexible ideology, you can't underestimate how beholden he is to the social conservatives who got him the nomination (and whom he would need for a second term). If he is elected, I hope he surprises me and appoints moderates, but I'm pretty sure he would play to the base.