Comrade wrote:I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.
...you have to take the sum of what was accomplished by Rommney's at Bain and consider that on its merits instead of dividing things up and cherry pick what you don't like in an effort to promote an agenda. That is not intellectually honest.
Thanks for a well-considered answer. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but at least I can see your line of reasoning and understand how you arrive at your conclusions.
In the paragraph I reprinted above, though, I disagree with your thinking. Here's why:
Romney's record at Bain shows his main goal was to make money for himself and his investors, which is perfectly legitimate and to be expected.
However, the US government is not a business. It exists to serve the people, not make a profit. For that reason, the processes that take place within the government require different skills from those needed to run a business.
In government, cooperation, deliberation, and negotiation get a lot more emphasis because there are many, not just one or a few, interests to consider. And for every time government has to move quickly -- say in foreign affairs -- there are many times things work very slowly and cannot be decided before their time. Patience, perseverance, and diplomacy get things done over the long haul.
Example: Look at what just happened at the University of Virginia. One member of the board took a disliking to President Sullivan, who was recently chosen. The board member engineered a coup and had President Sullivan, who was otherwise popular, removed. Later, after much upheaval and angst, Sullivan was reinstated.
The board member, Helen Dragas, came from a business background and handled this situation as you would in a business: she solicited prospective votes from the board in secret and then executed the coup (my term) as a surprise move. She had not consulted the other interests in the community, the faculty, student body, alumni, or anyone else. And the community caused the coup to fail.
Dragas might be perfectly competent in the business world but she did not work well in an academic context, as the results show.
This situation is parallel with the difference between the business world and the world of government. Because of that, I do not feel Romney's background in business strengthens his claim he should be our next president. How do we know he understands the needs of his various constituencies, including a whole range of ordinary citizens? He's done a pretty good job of showing he does not, in my view. And acting in the interests of his constituents is definitely part of the job description.
I might feel otherwise if, in his campaign, he was emphasizing his accomplishments as governor of Massachusetts, but he isn't. On the contrary, he's trying to get the voters to forget he ever was there.
And in business, we could find managers and owners who treated their employees as a valuable, even precious, asset. That's one way of running a business, but it's not part of Romney's record either.
In short, I think his current behavior and his history in business show he's got the wrong priorities to be a good president.
We aren't going to change one another's minds on this, but at least we can appreciate the different values that underlie the conclusions we draw.
By the way, Hawk, I'm glad to have a CPA on board here. I have some knowledge of tax, but not always enough to back up what I'm trying to say. Thanks for your two cents.