This is about the only fair comment I’ve heard on the point and why I don’t pay much attention to Bill Gates.

And thanks for the comments James. From what we keep seeing here, you’d think these guys don’t realize how much worse McCain, Hillary, or Obama would be. But, I know that’s not the point, and not what they are saying… but still, what are the alternatives? Ron Paul? Wake up, it is not going to happen.

It’s the same with the Olympics. Midwesterner can baldly assert that Thompson is a dynamist and Mitt not, but the facts simply don’t support that position. Now, it appears that Midwesterner is willfully ignorant of that (I”m not interested in… appears frequently), and Mitt’s tenure as governor gave him less scope for that sort of free market utilising creativity, outside of healthcare.

It’s also worth noting that the Harvard MBA/JD program from which he graduated cum laude included economics. I don’t know his specific scores in individual classes, but accusing him of not being interested in economics seems unfair.

He changes his mind on two issues, one with a pretty powerful story, the other being one that appears to me to have been simply unimportant to him, and that leads you to think that he’s governed by liberal opinion?

He was loathed by the Globe, his local newspaper, to a degree almost unparalleled for a US governor, largely because he was never a liberal.

The US, unlike the UK, has a separation of powers, which forces a little more negotiation with the legislature, which was heavily Democratic, but he worked hard to promote the market.

Before attacking him, don’t just look at his results, look at how he got there, the degree to which he was willing to take unpopular, controversial decisions, and so on. The Olympics is another great story of his willingness to fire people and roll back government, while getting better success out of it.

Lastly, the belief that a more efficient free market, with less government intervention, can bring jobs to Michigan is far from absurd. American cars are a tremendously importan export industry and battering down tariffs and taxes should help them prosper. Dramatically reducing corporations tax should, in fact, help most businesses in Michigan. The other big angle is that he would work hard to stop the environmentalists destroying the industry.

Seriously, there’s something wrong when a politician can say that he wants to protect people from government and have libertarians attack him for it.

Here is his website on his economic plans, the ones he was talking about in Michigan:
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/global-economic-competition
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/curbing-federal-spending

Go on, call this platform of deregulation and tax cuts statist. I’m sure a true libertarian would be for… no, I’ll wait for someone to tell me.

That MI union labor priced itself out of the market.

Ah well, the weather is nicer down South, they are welcome to follow the jobs down here.

Of course they’ll vote for any whore who comes along promising corporate welfare to give them their high-paid dreamy jobs back….put it back the way it was, in the good old days!

Mitt is a whore.

“Public-private partnerships” makes me want to retch.

Does he think the automotive industry is stupid, doesn’t know what its problems are, and gummint is inherently wiser and can fix it?

Barf!!!

I think you have a rather optimistic view of how people in the financial world actually think. Given Romney’s history of pandering, I would be amazed if he was not like 85% of all the other venture capitalists I have known: they do not care about regulations, only that the company management took them into account they they drew up their business plan. Venture capitalists generally know jack shit about economics and would not know a Laffer Curve from a Turbocharger (its not practical enough). All they care about how a management team navigates the system.

In short, Romney is a venture capitalist who’s sole business is making other businesses work, and knows the kind of environment where this is made more possible. Romney has no reason to do what you are suggesting Perry, creating “irresponsible tax laws and regulations” as it would ruin his personal business, ruining all the businesses he rehabilitates.

I disagree. Being wealthy and a businessman, you know better than anyone what irresponsible tax laws do to individuals, companies, and to the economy.

Yes, but so what? That just means like so many businessmen/politicians, he knows how to game the system and thereby profit personally (either monetarily or by ‘buying’ votes) from irresponsible tax laws and regulations. I am of the view quite a lot of politicians and businessmen know full well what the broader consequences of state actions are and support them anyway, which means they are not misguided, they are actually evil.

He was a venture capitalist, not an auto manufacturer.

So?

“Sadly many very rich people want a much bigger government both in terms of size (government spending and taxation) and scope (regulations).”

I disagree. Being wealthy and a businessman, you know better than anyone what irresponsible tax laws do to individuals, companies, and to the economy. He was a venture capitalist, not an auto manufacturer. Is it somehow better if he is a rich Marxist? That’s closer to what you are saying with this second post, even if essentially true in the minds of the middle-low to lower class voters.

Did you even read it? Firstly, I am 100% certain, even though you used quotation marks, that I didn’t use the word “legalize” – had I done, I would – have spelt it correctly.

Lol, self-owned. Though both spellings are acceptable, using an ‘s’ is considered extremely declassé.

First he has no chance whatever of being elected President of the United States of America.

He is a rich kid, yes so is George Bush is as well – but George Bush gives a good imitation of looking and sounding like an ordinary Texan, Mitt Romney looks and sounds like what he is.

Americans will accept a Democrat who was born rich – they have more of a problem with a Republican who was born rich.

Military serice can help, but Mitt Romney did not serve – not even in the National Guard. He was too busy knocking on doors trying to convince people to be Mormons (no I am not making that up).

Also former Governor Romney’s record is poor – not just being Governor “Fee-Fee”, but the universal health care plan (ever more costs and fines in the years ahead) and the silly political stunts – like ordering the State Police to get tough with illegal immigrants IN HIS LAST FEW WEEKS AS GOVERNOR (i.e. it was just a stunt that he thought would play well in the comming campaign to be President).

He is also Mr Flip-Flop.

He changes his position on abortion, “gun control” and everything else in order to impress the person he is talking to.

If, by some Act of God, he found himself President he would go along with elite (i.e. “liberal” opinion).

As for his claims that more government spending (and his own management skills in Washington D.C.) would restore the auto industry in Michigan, this is utterly absurd.