• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney = Calvin Coolidge?

Goshin

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
47,457
Reaction score
53,140
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Romney is not exactly an inspiring candidate for President.

He's been a governor, like most Presidents. Yawn.

He's relatively middle-of-the-road, rarely uttering or doing anything very far from the center position.

He's very much a politician. Every word is measured and calculated, never a hair out of place.

He's vanilla ice cream. Cheap vanilla ice cream.


OTOH... Calvin Coolidge was a boring vanilla President too. He came into office on the heels of some difficult times and public scandals. He was a boring and quiet President, whose motto was "The business of America is Business." His little-remembered presidency was chiefly marked by low-key pro-business policy and not a lot else.


Maybe this is exactly what we need? I keep hearing that a big reason why most businesses aren't expanding, why most rich people aren't investing, why jobs aren't being created, is economic uncertainty. A lot of that is caused by a lot of new regulations and mandates falling on businesses, and their general uncertainty about government fiscal policy.

Maybe we need a boring President who won't rock the boat with radicalism or extremes, who will just quietly set about shifting economic policy to a centrist and pro-business position and otherwise be quiet and low-key?

Maybe, after all the upheaval of the past decade, a bland Romney presidency would give everyone a chance to catch their breath?

I'm not a fan of the man personally, I'm just asking the question.
 
Last edited:
who is mittens for kittens? Let's explore a piece of mittens world



Anyway, I don't see him tackling our monetary policy with the fed, respecting the constitution, and will likely start a war with Iran/pakistan after consulting his lawyers. That and goldman sachs and other big banks have him in the bag. Just more of the same.
 
Goshin said:
Romney is not exactly an inspiring candidate for President.

He's been a governor, like most Presidents. Yawn.

He's relatively middle-of-the-road, rarely uttering or doing anything very far from the center position.

He's very much a politician. Every word is measured and calculated, never a hair out of place.

He's vanilla ice cream. Cheap vanilla ice cream.


OTOH... Calvin Coolidge was a boring vanilla President too. He came into office on the heels of some difficult times and public scandals. He was a boring and quiet President, whose motto was "The business of America is Business." His little-remembered presidency was chiefly marked by low-key pro-business policy and not a lot else.


Maybe this is exactly what we need? I keep hearing that a big reason why most businesses aren't expanding, why most rich people aren't investing, why jobs aren't being created, is economic uncertainty. A lot of that is caused by a lot of new regulations and mandates falling on businesses, and their general uncertainty about government fiscal policy.

Maybe we need a boring President who won't rock the boat with radicalism or extremes, who will just quietly set about shifting economic policy to a centrist and pro-business position and otherwise be quiet and low-key?

Maybe, after all the upheaval of the past decade, a bland Romney presidency would give everyone a chance to catch their breath?

I'm not a fan of the man personally, I'm just asking the question.
Click to expand...

That's the best-case scenario, I think.

The problem with Mitt isn't that he's boring, but that he has next to no principles (or if he has them, they're way less important to him than his career advancement). We don't really know where he stands, or what he's going to do.

I have a feeling that the next president, whoever it is, can't be low-key; they issues they'll be faced with are simply too large. If Mitt's elected, he'll be faced with repealing Obamacare, possibly (hopefully!) repealing other Obama-presidency legislation, possibly (hopefully!) replacing them with something better... then there's all the foreign policy messes over in the middle east. And if he doesn't have the balls to deal with those things, it'll probably be even more controversial. Calvin Coolidge didn't have to deal with much... he had a booming economy, a country that was still isolationist and, at that point, had little reason not to be... all he had to do was lay back and let stuff happen. Romney, not so much. Whatever he does - or even if he does nothing - it'll have huge repercussions.
 
jasonxe said:
who is mittens for kittens? Let's explore a piece of mittens world



Anyway, I don't see him tackling our monetary policy with the fed, respecting the constitution, and will likely start a war with Iran/pakistan after consulting his lawyers. That and goldman sachs and other big banks have him in the bag. Just more of the same.
Click to expand...


That's one of my real concerns about Romney...I just don't know what the guy stands for.
 
jasonxe said:
who is mittens for kittens? Let's explore a piece of mittens world



Anyway, I don't see him tackling our monetary policy with the fed, respecting the constitution, and will likely start a war with Iran/pakistan after consulting his lawyers. That and goldman sachs and other big banks have him in the bag. Just more of the same.
Click to expand...


 
So the election would be Coolidge vs Carter?
 
Goshin said:
Romney is not exactly an inspiring candidate for President.

He's been a governor, like most Presidents. Yawn.

He's relatively middle-of-the-road, rarely uttering or doing anything very far from the center position.

He's very much a politician. Every word is measured and calculated, never a hair out of place.

He's vanilla ice cream. Cheap vanilla ice cream.


OTOH... Calvin Coolidge was a boring vanilla President too. He came into office on the heels of some difficult times and public scandals. He was a boring and quiet President, whose motto was "The business of America is Business." His little-remembered presidency was chiefly marked by low-key pro-business policy and not a lot else.


Maybe this is exactly what we need? I keep hearing that a big reason why most businesses aren't expanding, why most rich people aren't investing, why jobs aren't being created, is economic uncertainty. A lot of that is caused by a lot of new regulations and mandates falling on businesses, and their general uncertainty about government fiscal policy.

Maybe we need a boring President who won't rock the boat with radicalism or extremes, who will just quietly set about shifting economic policy to a centrist and pro-business position and otherwise be quiet and low-key?

Maybe, after all the upheaval of the past decade, a bland Romney presidency would give everyone a chance to catch their breath?

I'm not a fan of the man personally, I'm just asking the question.
Click to expand...

not that this was your intent.

but this is an insult to the memory of one of our best presidents. Romney isn't a Coolidge. He's a Hoover.
 
Ikari said:
That's one of my real concerns about Romney...I just don't know what the guy stands for.
Click to expand...

he doesn't stand for anything. his central belief system consists of the opinion that he should be president.
 
cpwill said:
he doesn't stand for anything. his central belief system consists of the opinion that he should be president.
Click to expand...


Pretty much, yeah. But I think that along with that, he would probably stick to a middle-of-the-road policy stance on most everything, and work mostly on restoring confidence in the economy, because he would want to be re-elected. His motives may not be admirable, but they're at least predictable. :mrgreen:
 
cpwill said:
not that this was your intent.

but this is an insult to the memory of one of our best presidents. Romney isn't a Coolidge. He's a Hoover.
Click to expand...

So it's Hoover vs. Carter? Sounds like choosing between Heath Shuler and Ryan Leaf as your starting QB.
 
Goshin said:
Pretty much, yeah. But I think that along with that, he would probably stick to a middle-of-the-road policy stance on most everything, and work mostly on restoring confidence in the economy, because he would want to be re-elected. His motives may not be admirable, but they're at least predictable. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

over at mother jones, they are actually selling that as his best attribute.

but predictable? no, it doesn't make him predictable - it makes him as predictable as the fickle American publics' latest reaction to the 24-hour-news-cycle.

we can't afford a middle-of-the-road-go-along-to-get-along administration - the solidification of the expansion of government and debt that has occurred over the past few years combined with the looming entitlement crises would literally financially destroy this nation. you need someone who deep in his gut believes in the principles in the Ryan Budget and can eruditely defend them on the national stage. Romney may be smart, but the first hint of push-back from the "you're going to kill grandma's and autistic children!!!" crowd, and he will fold like a wet napkin.

and that. is why I will not vote for him. I'll write in Mitch Daniels, or vote third party.
 
cpwill said:
over at mother jones, they are actually selling that as his best attribute.

but predictable? no, it doesn't make him predictable - it makes him as predictable as the fickle American publics' latest reaction to the 24-hour-news-cycle.

we can't afford a middle-of-the-road-go-along-to-get-along administration - the solidification of the expansion of government and debt that has occurred over the past few years combined with the looming entitlement crises would literally financially destroy this nation. you need someone who deep in his gut believes in the principles in the Ryan Budget and can eruditely defend them on the national stage. Romney may be smart, but the first hint of push-back from the "you're going to kill grandma's and autistic children!!!" crowd, and he will fold like a wet napkin.

and that. is why I will not vote for him. I'll write in Mitch Daniels, or vote third party.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer someone better.... but do you know anyone better, who is actually likely to both win the primary and beat Obama?

Sometimes you have to settle for the best you can get, if for no other reason than to avoid the worst.
 
"Keep rom with Romney."

Nah, doesn't work.
 
I'm starting to really scratch my head over why Tim Pawlenty decided to leave the race so early. If he were still in he'd probably be the best candidate, in terms of being both the most conservative and the most electable against Obama. His only weakness was his boringness, which really would have made him like the modern day Cool Cal... Romney is unexciting because nobody knows where he stands on anything, Pawlenty was just plain soft-spoken. He'd be a far more accurate comparison to Coolidge. Oh well... what could have been.
 
Goshin said:
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer someone better.... but do you know anyone better, who is actually likely to both win the primary and beat Obama?
Click to expand...

:( Mitch Daniels. Who did not run, and broke my heart.

Sometimes you have to settle for the best you can get, if for no other reason than to avoid the worst.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm from Alabama - my electoral votes are going to the guy with the "R" after his name irrespective of what I put down. So if the guy is Romney, I'm voting Libertarian so as to keep him threatened on his right flank.
 
cpwill said:
:( Mitch Daniels. Who did not run, and broke my heart.



Nope. I'm from Alabama - my electoral votes are going to the guy with the "R" after his name irrespective of what I put down. So if the guy is Romney, I'm voting Libertarian so as to keep him threatened on his right flank.
Click to expand...

Most excellent! We can only hope that this sort of thing gets lots of traction next year and becomes a widespread cause celebre among the right. Of course, if it does, many of them will slink into the booth and vote for Romney after months and months of chest thumping for the third party candidate.
 
haymarket said:
Most excellent! We can only hope that this sort of thing gets lots of traction next year and becomes a widespread cause celebre among the right. Of course, if it does, many of them will slink into the booth and vote for Romney after months and months of chest thumping for the third party candidate.
Click to expand...

If he picks Mitch or someone of similar stature for VP, I may reconsider. But until then, I'm in a safe state. If I was in a swing state it'd be a different story.
 
Goshin said:
Romney is not exactly an inspiring candidate for President.

He's been a governor, like most Presidents. Yawn.

He's relatively middle-of-the-road, rarely uttering or doing anything very far from the center position.

He's very much a politician. Every word is measured and calculated, never a hair out of place.

He's vanilla ice cream. Cheap vanilla ice cream.


OTOH... Calvin Coolidge was a boring vanilla President too. He came into office on the heels of some difficult times and public scandals. He was a boring and quiet President, whose motto was "The business of America is Business." His little-remembered presidency was chiefly marked by low-key pro-business policy and not a lot else.


Maybe this is exactly what we need? I keep hearing that a big reason why most businesses aren't expanding, why most rich people aren't investing, why jobs aren't being created, is economic uncertainty. A lot of that is caused by a lot of new regulations and mandates falling on businesses, and their general uncertainty about government fiscal policy.

Maybe we need a boring President who won't rock the boat with radicalism or extremes, who will just quietly set about shifting economic policy to a centrist and pro-business position and otherwise be quiet and low-key?

Maybe, after all the upheaval of the past decade, a bland Romney presidency would give everyone a chance to catch their breath?

I'm not a fan of the man personally, I'm just asking the question.
Click to expand...

I think Romney's track record of reaching out to the other side and making compromises makes him the best chance, actually the only chance, for the GOP to unseat Obama.
 
danarhea said:
I think Romney's track record of reaching out to the other side and making compromises makes him the best chance, actually the only chance, for the GOP to unseat Obama.
Click to expand...
Romney is a chameleon, he changes color depending on the surrounding environment. That's not reaching out, it's flip-flopping on steroids. Maybe Rick Perry will rehearse his lines better and nail Romney in the next debate. It should be fun to watch.
 
Mitt Romney is certainly an interesting case. He's running on a solidly conservative platform, but as governor of Massachusetts, he was a moderate. The real question is whether the conservative base will accept this switch or judge him for his past. The conservative base could choose to set that aside, but considering what they have done to Rick Perry, it is a real possibility. Meanwhile, the Obama reelection campaign may be banking on this to happen after he is nominated.

Will Romney become the next president, or even the nominee? It's too early for me to tell.
 
Goshin said:
Romney is not exactly an inspiring candidate for President.

He's been a governor, like most Presidents. Yawn.

He's relatively middle-of-the-road, rarely uttering or doing anything very far from the center position.

He's very much a politician. Every word is measured and calculated, never a hair out of place.

He's vanilla ice cream. Cheap vanilla ice cream.


OTOH... Calvin Coolidge was a boring vanilla President too. He came into office on the heels of some difficult times and public scandals. He was a boring and quiet President, whose motto was "The business of America is Business." His little-remembered presidency was chiefly marked by low-key pro-business policy and not a lot else.


Maybe this is exactly what we need? I keep hearing that a big reason why most businesses aren't expanding, why most rich people aren't investing, why jobs aren't being created, is economic uncertainty. A lot of that is caused by a lot of new regulations and mandates falling on businesses, and their general uncertainty about government fiscal policy.

Maybe we need a boring President who won't rock the boat with radicalism or extremes, who will just quietly set about shifting economic policy to a centrist and pro-business position and otherwise be quiet and low-key?

Maybe, after all the upheaval of the past decade, a bland Romney presidency would give everyone a chance to catch their breath?

I'm not a fan of the man personally, I'm just asking the question.
Click to expand...

Whese the LINK?
 
Goshin said:
.....


Maybe this is exactly what we need? I keep hearing that a big reason why most businesses aren't expanding, why most rich people aren't investing, why jobs aren't being created, is economic uncertainty. A lot of that is caused by a lot of new regulations and mandates falling on businesses, and their general uncertainty about government fiscal policy.

...
Click to expand...
This is just a wrong assumption, but oft claimed reason for the current problem.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/107148-should-cut-8.html#post1059759248
mbig said:
Agreed.

This is the single most Misundertsood, and Intentionally foisted red herring part of the economic debate. That High taxes and lack of investment are the problem; or that it's "uncertainty".

Corporations are sitting on record/stupendous amounts of cash.
They are all, despite what they may say for lower rates/political reasons, in fact, "Certain".
Certain the [average] consumer is still 'deleveraging'/has No money to spend.
No "uncertainty" whatsoever.
Walmart reports their customers are 'running out of money' (DP string)... but Tiffany profits up 30%.

This is due not just to the recession, but the tax burden which has become increasingly regressive.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/101932-plutocracy-reborn.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html

Not just the Income tax Burden (yes, we know 40% 'pay no fed income taxes') but the overall effective one that includes state/local/sales taxes etc.

What in fact, would a higher rate on only those earning over $1 mil (and/or $10 mil) (Buffett suggestion and mine) do if used to fund a jobs/infrastructure building program? One Desperately needed anyway.

Alternatively, Having -0- Federal Income tax on income under 25K and making it up at the top end.
That would be like a stimulous check the economy needs, while probably getting rid of 1/4 of the IRS.
This group adds relatively little to receipts anyway. Tho THEY have no lobbyists.
Click to expand...
If demand is there, which it is NOT, (They ARE certain) you still invest whether your tax Burden is 5-10% either way.
Obvioulsy (to me anyway) whether you keep 60% or 70% on your money/gross margin, it's is still better than making 1% sitting on it....
Click to expand...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ee-buffett-tax-us-more-14.html#post1059776428
There IS "insufficent demand" for New investment and will be for years because the little guy is Still 'deleveraging'.
"Insufficient demand" does NOT mean companies are going broke!

There IS record cash in company coffers but they leaving it earning .1% because investing in factories for more production for people who can't afford any more is of course dumb.
In fact, many/most big companies Are laying off people.
(CSCO, Banks,, etc)
This also busts the Other Myth "Uncertainty."
There is NO uncertainty. In fact everyone well knows/is certain that jobs, houses, and demand will be low for years due to over-extension on every level.
Click to expand...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/107010-class-warfare-reality-hoax-18.html#post1059785289
And THAT is why we're having a recession. (in fact the definition of one)
The Poor, working poor, lower middle, middle have No money to spend.
They are still 'deleveraging'.

Everyone knows this and cash-rich companies are not investing because there is no demand for more goods.
We hear alot about "uncertainty", the biggest Lie told.
Everyone with any sense is "certain" this Problem will continue.

The Problem how to get money in the hands of the little guy....
Click to expand...
If Herman Cain's 9/9/9 (aka, 18% no deduction tax on low wage earners/Reverse Stimulus) gets introduced, I am Certain we will have a depression and millions on the street.
 
Last edited:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom