MITT ROMNEY: HOW DIFFERENT WOULD HE BE FROM GEORGE W.BUSH? ROMNEY WOULD BE BUSH III. Romney Has No Personal Record OF Achievement To Run On So He Has To Attack Obama.

May 8, 2012 by
Filed under: Uncategorized 


Mitt Romney doesn’t talk much about George W. Bush in fact he would like us to forget about the “Compassionate Conservative” who nearly destroyed the financial system of the country with his leadership. Nothing  is said about  the Bush who led us into two wars one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq which many politicians and scholars think was unnecessary. Iraq left behind over four thousand dead and thousands of others scarred, brain damaged and debilitated for  life. This doesn’t include civilian deaths and casualties which still continue in Iraq.

The Bush that believed in American supremacy so much so that we didn’t care or need the support of allies in foreign policy matters is never mentioned. (Romney thought so  highly of this policy he named his recent book  “No Apology” meaning no apology to foreign allies for not consulting with them on major decisions.)  No mention is made of the the Bush who believed in a small regulatory government, a huge defense sector and that Medicare and Social Security should be matters for private sector investment . (After the recent bond market collapse one could guess where the retirement of millions of Americans would be if Social Security was allowed to privatize.)

Bush did expand prescription drugs for seniors to the great joy of the pharmaceutical companies. It was such a great idea that many congressional insiders rushed to buy pharmaceutical stocks so one wonders who really benefit from this. When Bush left office there were wars still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, the National Debt which was nearly nonexistent when he took office was in the trillions of dollars, the highest it has ever been and of course an economy  in collapse.

Would a Romney government be any less of a disaster, answer no. Romney believes in the same principles as Bush. Despite all the parsing on issues in the primaries and now as the general election heats up Romney is still fundamentally on the same page as Bush. There may be slight differences in degree but we would get the same policies and the same cadre of loyalist Republicans now stowed away in conservative think tanks or in industry to serve in the cabinet and other appointed government positions.

Like Bush, Romney is for small government (translate as small regulatory government.) There would be light regulation of Wall Street under Romney just it was under Christopher Cox, Bush’s appointee to the chairmanship of the SEC.  Thus there was no one to put the brakes on to stop the last financial bubble. The Federal Reserve under the chairmanship of Republican and freemarketeer, Greenspan while not under the control of Bush but appointed by him,   refusing to use the Fed’s power to curb mortgage lending while subprime lending and securitization went beyond all rationality.

Romney is already on record in his primary speeches and his book that he would take the government back to the Bush years which enriched the top 20% the expense of the bottom 80%. Romney is one of those who benefited amassing wealth of two hundred twenty million dollars while paying income taxes of 15% or less while salaried working people paid in the vicinity 0f 30% or more.

He cites his business experience at a hedge fund as somehow making him more qualified to make the economy run more efficiently. Yet his work at buying and restructuring companies usually meant the loss of jobs in balance over his hedge fund career.  Further when judged against other  hedge fund managers like Paul Singer, Ray Dalio, James Simons, Carl Icahn, Steve Cohen or David Shaw he looks like Mickey Mouse  and we haven’t even come near the likes of Warren Buffet or George Soros. He has no record to run on as a superb business man. He was a subpar business man

Romney doesn’t talk about his four years as governor of Massachusetts except to deny that Romney care, the model for Obama’s affordable health care are the same in principle. He really has nothing to talk about as governor except the health care plan that the Massachusetts Legislature created and  enacted and he signed reluctantly.

When he was governor of Massachusetts employment was the worst of the fifty states. Business  activity was down and economically the state went bankrupt in that there  were  budget deficits. Romney has no record to run on as governor. Many of the same policies he favored for Massachusetts would now be applied to the federal government. One guesses he learned nothing from his experience as governor except.

Less government, but huge defense,

Less regulation,

Free markets,

Deficits don’t matter (Reagan proved this. [lol]),

The bigger the military the better to solve problems with force and loss of life (somebody else’s rather than  his or his family) rather than diplomacy.

Lower taxes for the wealthy so they can create jobs,

Eliminate social welfare plans like Social Security and Medicare as they are a drag on a free economy.

Tighten up voter rolls so less people can vote or are afraid to vote and those that do vote are more likely to be wealthy thus reducing the level of democracy,

Get rid of immigrants (they don’t vote anyway),

Let students fund their own education like he never did,

Military service, that’s for someone other than himself or his family but extol patriotism as if he or his five sons fought and won in Vietnam, Iran and Afghanistan.

Does this sound like the policies of BUSH II?



2 Comments on MITT ROMNEY: HOW DIFFERENT WOULD HE BE FROM GEORGE W.BUSH? ROMNEY WOULD BE BUSH III. Romney Has No Personal Record OF Achievement To Run On So He Has To Attack Obama.

  1. Sergio Veskovic on Fri, 11th May 2012 8:14 am
  2. I agree with you 100%.
    I am very impressed by your blog and would love to interview you for my blog:
    Please see below questions I would like you to answer:

    What are your thoughts about Mitt Romney as a GOP candidate?
    What do you think about Obama and his chances for re-election?
    What do you think will be the main issue in November election?
    How do you think Social Media will play a role in this campaign? and can you compare it to Obama’s campaign of 2008?
    What is your opinion of Super PACs and its influence in this race?
    If you have some other thought you would like to share please feel free.

    Thank you so much and kind regards;

    Sergio Veskovic

  3. Ed on Sun, 13th May 2012 1:58 pm
  4. Sergio Veskovic:

    1. My last article addressed Romney as a candidate. Basically he would be another George W. Bush in political philosophy and in terms of the people he brought into the government. We would have a repeat of the Bush years which would be bad for the country. Also on my blog I analyze Romney’s book chapter by chapter and my con-conclusion was he was another Bush

    2. I think Obama will be reelected but not with out a tough fight and a lot of mud will be thrown at him. He should take nothing for granted, no state not even his home state, Illinois or issue will be his for sure.

    3. The focus will be on the economy and jobs. However Obama inherited a bad financial and economic situation from Bush. Studies show that economies on average emerge from a financial melt down or a main street downturn after six years at the most. The exception is the Great Depression. We are starting to emerge now but probably will not be back to full employment by 2014. By then we will have worked our way through the mortgage crisis and new construction will be on the upswing.

    4. In 2008, I did a book review on this on my blog for the Howard Dean campaign which was almost entirely a child of the social media. He was able to raise a lot of money and organize through Meet Up and other organizations. His campaign manager wrote the book about the campaign called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything by Joe Trippi. This book Is still on Amazon and my critique of the book is still there. I concluded that social media is important for raising money and organizing but television is the most important method or reaching voters.
    5. The Super Pacs are new and we don’t know how important they will be. They will bring more money and attack ads for sure. They will be able to steamroll underfunded candidates in state races but in the presidential race both sides will be well funded so it is hard to say what their effect will be other than to lower the dialogue between the candidates.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!