Comments on: Mitt Romney: S#*! authentic people say Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:02:59 +0000 hourly 1 By: Neilwal Sat, 19 May 2012 06:32:06 +0000 What did Oscar Wilde say? ‘We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars’

By: Neilwal Sun, 13 May 2012 00:51:31 +0000 For authentic sages, the road to excess candor is the palace of wisdom – Overdeliver :) :) :)

By: MoeCoates Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:13:30 +0000 It is sad to read and listen to Jack and Suzy Welch trying to sell Mitt Romney to the American voter. I would expect that Jack would understand that the President of the United States is a world leader. Romney is the type leader that runs against the grain of 90 percent of the world leaders. Just like Bush the world will have to sit and wait 4 more years just see Romney go. Romney is weak on references if you look at this track record. His claim regarding the success of Stables is a reputation that requires a lot of salt to digest. The main area weak Romney has made money are borderline situations where the success could be questioned from the moral or legal standpoint. Jack you have to do more reseach. Romney is not a vision man and will bring no direction for the future of the United States. I understand you want him because he is the last standing Republican. The manner or should I say the tone of your reasoning is “If that is all we have got then lets vote for him.”. That is just not good enough. If Romney has not learned the games of politics in 2012 then he will never learn. Jack if you have a weak product then you as a former CEO have got to face the reality and cut the product out of the program. Talking about Obama´s enemy list is also a poor approach. Listen to Romney every day he has something negative to say about Obama. Use the YouTube. Listen to Romney and his wife pushes you to Obama. What do I want out of Jack and Suzy – honesty. Jack lay the cards on the table, so that we believe that you still have the makings of a CEO.

By: Adam.Smith Fri, 23 Mar 2012 03:46:04 +0000 Does anyone (including Romney) know who the real Romney is anymore?

No matter, it will all “Shake Out” come the fall, right?

By: ConradU812 Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:36:08 +0000 “He just doesn’t seem, as the nattering goes, very authentic.”

Doesn’t SEEM authentic? God save us from those who can’t think from their mind, only from emotions.

After all, that’s what got our present POTUS in office, and we’re paying dearly for it now. Check Romney’s platform. That’s what counts, it’s in writing, and it actually has concrete meaning…unlike these fortune teller “readings”.

Quit having “Feelings” about candidates and use your cognative ability….if the current administration hasn’t regulated that, too.

By: ArtALayman Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:07:54 +0000 Have known a few CEOs in my time and while they were “salt of the earth” people among their peers a whole different persona exists when amongst their “lessers”. Romney appears typical in that respect. Even in debates his facial expressions and body language suggest he doesn’t consider his opponents his peers. His reaction to, at times inane, questions in interviews is clearly testy. No doubt a common feeling for candidates for high office but the trick is in avoiding the appearance of pomposity.

His primary argument for choosing him is he was successful in business, therefore, he understands economics sufficiently to be successful in running the country. Aristotle might have had trouble with that logic.

I’m afraid that the Romney we see in the campaign is the “authentic” Romney. He’s a WYSIWYG candidate and for the common folk that is not a comforting thought. Outside of foreign relations, and the world does not suffer a pompous POTUS gladly, the biggest job for a POTUS is instilling trust and faith in the populace. Its’ akin to: “Nothing happens until somebody sells something” and Romney seems less intent on selling something than in dictating something.

Romney is stereotypical of why, with all due respect, I am adamantly opposed to former CEOs becoming POTUS. Their modus operandi is often at odds with the realities of governing, especially an entire nation.

I’ll give you that he seemed successful in governing MA but I also question how difficult that really was. MA is not AL or MS nor even CA.

Nice try but no cigar.

By: Dansk Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:52:05 +0000 Is it too late for Romney to reclaim his authenticity? A more fitting question would be does Romney have the courage to admit that he caused taxes and fees to rise while he was governor of MA? And does he have the courage to admit that he was a proponent of mandatory health care in MA as a surrogate for a national mandate health care model before he was against it? At least he thought so up until July of 2009. Lastly, it may boost his authenticity by at least acknowledging that without federal taxpayer rescue the 2002 Olympics may not have been possible.

One would only need look @ Mitt Romney’s “authentic” record while in the MA governor’s office (2003 – 2007) as testimony to his success as a fiscal conservative, problem solver and designer of mandated health care. He created a budget surplus in the second year of his term by slashing support to cities and towns for education, special education, fire, and police by $1.6B. He increased fees for licenses and gas by $360M. During the third year of his term cities and towns hiked taxes in large part to pay for the cuts. During the third and fourth years of his term my own personal property taxes increased a total of 25%. Tuition at state colleges increased 63% over the subsequent 4 years. Individuals were shouldering the budget cuts through increased local taxes and fees. Can this be the record of a fiscal conservative or an elaborate shell game deceiving individuals into thinking that he cut spending without increasing taxes and fees? By the time the voters realized what he had done he was off to run his first election for President.

Mandated national health care reform, which is based on a model that he helped develop in MA, was endorsed by Romney again in July 2009 according to USA Today. Flip flop to 2012, Romney opposes Obama’s national plan, saying “there’s a better way”. The 2002 Olympics, were heavily subsidized by the Federal Government, ($382 M plus $1.1 B for infrastructure and roads). Mitt takes credit for rescuing the Olympics. Does some of the credit belong to the American taxpayer? Would a fiscal conservative take federal money to subsidize a private project? No. Or, would a fiscal conservative have a hand in mandating health care reform? Certainly not.

My 16 year old daughter describes it as, “manipulative hypocrisy”. She might not be far off. In “Winning” you speak about leaders as possessing authenticity, “Their realness coming across in the way they communicate and reach people on an emotional level.” Last week Romney was in Boston to renew his license. He, his entourage and a couple of state troopers escorted him to a private office to have his picture taken. Now, wouldn’t that have been a great opportunity to connect and wait in line with the ordinary/authentic people?

Jack, withdraw your endorsement for Mitt now. It’s not too late for you to throw your hat in the ring you know!


By: GMavros Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:49:04 +0000 Romney’s entrance into politics was a huge mistake to begin with. Because of his background, his personality and the real huge Super Pack money propping that is him, he has alienated himself form today’s people realities.
Simply put, he is perceived as a more intelligent or less stupid George W. Bush.

By: JeffsComment Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:52:48 +0000 Thank you for the lucid, straightforward explanation of why so many good people cannot easily reach national government. They – or, probably more importantly, the people whom they trust to be their “handlers” – think candidates have to be “attractive” to the “right” groups of demographic constituencies. What a mistake.

As part of a “town hall” crowd of people, I had the great pleasure to meet Bob & Elizabeth Dole in 2000. At that time, she was being considered as a potential Vice Presidential candidate for Bush II; he had already served 27 years in the Senate when he left in 1996 to run unsuccessfully against Bill Clinton.

What struck me most about the brief chats that I had with each of them was the authenticity – the “real deal” feeling. Most of all, though, I found this surprising from Bob. Libby never really changed: she was, for better or worse, always herself – in every interview, in every encounter. But, after the chats, it seemed to me that, had “this Bob Dole” run for President – not the stuffy, humorless, senior statesman put to the American people but the warm, funny, self-deprecating, very sincere Bob Dole whom I met that day – things might have been very different…

Are you reading this, Mitt?