Comments on: Mitt Romney’s Kodak moment

By: sickofitinca

sickofitinca — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:07:23 +0000

StatusQu0, the fact that you are a registered Republican and will be voting for the President is interesting. I am curious about how you fee that the Obama Administration has made our lives better over the course of his current term. It appears to me that the country is more divided than it was and most of his campaign promises, save the “fundamental transformation” promise have not come to fruition. I re-started my life after Jimmy Carter left office and Ronald Reagan took office and began a new career because I was unemployed or underemployed during the bulk of his term. I became unemployed again shortly after Mr. Obama took office with several negative consequences resulting from the lack of employment. I also voted for Mr. Obama and watched while he made the transition to the office and fully expected that there would be missteps along the way for the first year and a half. After 2 years he was still blaming Bush. After 3 years he is still blaming Bush. I contrast him with Ronald Reagan when he took over a really bad economy from Jimmy Carter. Reagan never once said anything to disparage Jimmy or the policies that his government had during those turbulent times. George Bush also took over a stumbling economy and got it back on track after 9/11 and got the unemployment below 5%.

I currently see no redeeming factors with staying with the current President. He has pandered to almost every faction in the country and did his apology tour overseas and in the process alienated a lot of us old vets that still think that we are an exceptional country that bows to no-one. Kissing babies is fine. Kissing the ring of other world leaders is not.

By: LouVignates

LouVignates — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:16:12 +0000

Let’s think about what motivates Mitt Romney to be so obtuse. How about vanity? Does he think his great achievements and charisma can overcome all?
When you can see a closeup of his hair, note the indications he has had a hair transplant. There is a central tuft of hair on his forehead. In the front of the tuft are about ten small bundles of hair hat look very much like transplanted chunks. In the background of the central tuft is a broad sweep of baldness. Yessir, VANITY

By: JoeOvercoat

JoeOvercoat — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:34:10 +0000

“He is, in our view, the most qualified and electable Republican candidate left in the race.” That implies that it does not matter if the Republican candidate is the best candidate for the country: instead of “Reuters”, perhaps you should just call yourself ‘Republicans’.

By: Mike_s1

Mike_s1 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:28:31 +0000

I think this is the difference between politics and corporate-think, which we keep hearing will ‘save America if we run it like a corporation’. I’ve worked at many corporations, and thank goodness our government isn’t run like one. Did you ever vote for your CEO? Can you kick them out in 4 years if you don’t like them? Our political system always has it’s share of ‘smart, snarky lieutenants’ in the form of the opposition.

But this brings us to the reality of running a race against the opposition. In a corporate world, a CEO can come in on Monday and say “Buggy whips are just old school. Let’s start making steering wheels.” Short of a boardroom revolt, he (or she) can see the transformation through without worrying about the ramifications. A politician cannot. Supporters of the buggy whip lobby would now be pressed into action to shred any legislative agenda the President had planned, while PACs would run 24-hour news ads on how shuttering the buggy whip plant, while saving the corporation, put hard working Americans out on the street (blasting a decorated vet for having the temerity to serve on a SWIFT boat comes to mind).

Politicians face a relentless opponent that will look for any misstep or gaffe and turn it into the arrow to slay the opponent. Politicians need to play not to lose rather than the CEO’s goal of playing to win. If Romney were to openly take on the issue, he would be exposing himself to far more risk than staying on message (something about fairness to millionaires or businessmen make better politicians, I think). This isn’t the America of 1960, and a keynote speech on a candidate’s religious background certainly has the propensity of doing far more harm than good, especially if you have voters who may not have made up their mind about the candidate but have made up their mind about Mormonism.

Think back to President Clinton’s classic ‘I didn’t inhale’ to deflate questions about his personal choices as a young man (President GW Bush did similar face service to his destructive youth as well). To face up to the question that needed to be asked (Do we have a reasonable and enforceable drug policy) would have been political suicide. Likewise, affirming your faith while losing the election might make for a great Disney film, but not the path any candidate chooses voluntarily.

By: FoggyDay

FoggyDay — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:56:27 +0000

Romney’s Mormon faith is important for a number of reasons, and not just to Evangelicals.

For instance, how is he going to explain the Mormon practice of “baptizing” dead Holocaust victims? And then there is the incident in which Anne Romney’s father, a long-time atheist, was baptized into the Mormon faith, post mortem and without his permission.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints performs vicarious baptisms for individuals regardless of their race, sex, creed, or morality. It has baptized both victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust, including Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler. Some Jewish Holocaust survivors and some Jewish organizations have strenuously objected to this practice.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for _the_dead

The Church of the LDS is a secretive, hierarchical organization that is shrouded in mystery. The American people are entitled to know more about how Romney’s religious beliefs will impact his presidency.

By: Jonathan77

Jonathan77 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:24:08 +0000

I would much rather elect a Democratic President, Senate, and House based on the obvious merits of Progressivism, but if Fundamentalists refuse to support Romney, that will make the important job of political process that much easier for the good guys.

By: fbsrosa

fbsrosa — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:47:36 +0000

Mr Welch, Kodak was the first to invest in researching and developing of digital photography. In my opinion, what leaded Kodak to its situation was the fact that the brand Kodak was linked to film, to an old technology. If they established a new brand to market digital cameras, probably the results had been different. But is easy to find ‘flaws’ and the ‘correct way’ of doing things after a fact happens. Difficult is anticipate what will happens. Regards.

By: dr.bob

dr.bob — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:43:50 +0000

Jack, I disagree, Rom should keep doing what he is doing. The media coverage and money is doing just fine. Ron Paul is the greatest threat to him. If he truely wants to win he should speak to the liberal conservatives. Really, the conservatives. There are a lot of us Ross Perot types out there willing to throw away a vote. BTW, after that election, the investment dollars into our Cleveland Lighting Facility drasticly declined, work went to Mexico then Hungary then Asia. We made bricks without straw so laws were past to destroy the incandescent industry. Funny how politics works. Washington once bought 160 gals. of booze for under 400 voters! That always works.

By: rissey

rissey — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:04:23 +0000

Great article. My question to Mr Welch -”what were the Board of Directors, some whom are independent non executive, doing?”
Nay sayers and doubters are never welcome in almost all organisations – even the very well known ones; what more in political archetype set-ups where the candidate is preaching only to the converted.
The reality that candidate Romney is not hearing and seeing is his insincerity to the people that matters.

By: hkrieger

hkrieger — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:17:09 +0000

Another Kodak moment for Romney”, photo of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City:
http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/xc196.jpg

From the series, “Churches ad hoc”