Author Topic: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?  (Read 1557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 244,617
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« on: August 23, 2014, 10:41:55 AM »
http://spectator.org/articles/60293/how-do-you-solve-problem-mitt-romney

Political Hay
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?

‘Mitt must run’… but ‘Mitt can’t run.’ Here’s what to do.

By Judd Magilnick – 8.22.14



He wuz robbed. Admit it, you neo-cons, paleo-cons, compassionates, country clubbers and decline-to-states: right now, in a just, moral, ordered universe, Mitt Romney should be President.

He was right on Iraq and Benghazi, right on healthcare, immigration, and Russia. But he was so mendaciously smeared that voters possessed the ludicrous mindset that Mitt didn’t “care about someone like me.” Feckless Republican operatives allowed data-mining splashed with voter fraud to seal the defeat.

Twenty months later, numerous polls indicate significant voter remorse. This genuine sentiment has naturally provoked calls of “Run, Mitt, Run!” But, to other Republicans still traumatized by a loss that didn’t have to happen, the grace and decency of the man are his ultimate disqualifiers for a coming 2016 cage match.

The positive argument for another run is, like the man, straightforward:

    This is America — Everyone is supposed to have a Second Act.
    He’s unquestionably qualified — In addition to having been right, Mitt continues to display leadership and an articulate grasp of the current worrisome events.
    He’s popular — The polls say he can win.
    Redemption — His victory would deliver fairness and closure while rinsing away the acrid taste of unnecessary defeat.

But the naysayers also have excellent arguments:

    As Mitt is the first to point out, he’s already lost twice. America draws a paper-thin line between “determined” and “loser” — the difference between a Ronald Reagan and a Harold Stassen.
    For Mitt to run now, after categorically stating that he wouldn’t, undermines one of his most attractive attributes — that of the congenitally honest straight-shooter.
    Then, there’s the unfortunate CV item from Massachusetts: Just as the Apollo 13 capsule used the moon’s gravity to slingshot back to earth, Republicans need “Obamacare” to be the explosive negative force to hurtle — if not vomit — their candidates to victory. Easily revived, the false but effective comparison to “Romneycare” is an unnecessary and dangerous asteroid belt to yet again pass through.
    Finally, there’s his religion and the problem some voters have historically had with it. Even though Mitt is currently polling remarkably well among those groups believed to have sat on their hands in 2012, the reticence to vote for a Mormon really can’t be re-quantified until the votes are in — when it’s too late.

When presented as a binary yes/no choice, the Republican Party has an insoluble problem. Announcement of a third Romney campaign — or not — is guaranteed to disappoint approximately half the true believers, thus undermining the general election.

Fortunately, there’s still a legitimate, credible finesse that can break the binary conundrum. With two strokes of the pen, the next President (who is not Mitt) can restore justice and deliver a modicum of vindication to both the Governor and his supporters without the angst of another political showdown. For the sake of both the Party and their own campaign, all potential Republican presidential candidates should affirm that, upon victory, their first cabinet decision will be to ask Mitt Romney to simultaneously head both the Treasury and HHS Departments.

Granted, it’s always tempting — and unrealistic — to play fantasy politics imagining one’s own Dream Team sitting around the cabinet table counseling the President. Six years ago, some prominent thinkers declared that the new administration’s cabinet would become, like the intellectually confident Abraham Lincoln’s choices, another “team of rivals.” That painfully unaware projection has long ago been dumped into the ash heap of historical speculation.

This “Super-Secretary” dual portfolio is no such fantasy. And neither would it be a “co-presidency” as Gerald Ford’s people cheekily envisioned for Ronald Reagan at the 1980 convention. Instead, the SuperSec assignment would allow Mitt to do what he knows and does best, arguably better than anyone on the planet: manage turnaround.

Mitt needs to turn around Obamacare into a market-based, consumer-friendly transparent system that takes care of the needy. He needs to turn around an economy whose disastrous previous eight years will only be understood in depth after today’s liars leave office. To use the currently fashionable but bloodless phrasing, these are “interdisciplinary” challenges.

As SuperSec, his method would be the polar opposite of this president’s claque of un-vetted, opaque, politicized “czars.” Rather, Mitt would approach the task using the rough-and-tumble of a public stock corporation, with goals, metrics, accountability, and communication. Can anyone doubt that at least some of his success at reincarnating the ’02 Winter Olympics was simply the change of management culture from the corrupt international sports bureaucracy to an American can-do MBA-ism?

In 2015, the center-right voter base needs to go to the polls knowing that, no matter what firebrand is at the top of the ticket, they’ll be getting best-in-class leadership on the critical domestic economic issues.

Will Mitt accept? He seems to enjoy his current balance of work and family. But, he’s a patriot. His ego is in check, atypical for a politician. He understands the urgency, and he’s man enough to report without rancor to his “boss,” the President.

The offer would not be a “do-over of 2012.” Rather, it would be an instruction to “do it like it’s never been done before.” If an enlightened, unthreatened President makes the offer, Mitt will be our first SuperSec. He won’t have a choice.

Support the USO

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,675
  • Congrats Donald Trump! 45th POTUS!
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2014, 11:17:40 AM »
This then begs the question, who should be the top of the ticket?
Some #NeverTrumpers are like the pockets of Japanese who didn't know the war was over

Online alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,839
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2014, 11:26:35 AM »
This then begs the question, who should be the top of the ticket?

Really too early to say at this point, but right now I like Rick Perry.

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,011
    • Auktion Online
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2014, 11:35:40 AM »
I will be supporting Rand Paul.  I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials.  The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians?  It will be quite a balancing act.

As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP.  I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support.  In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.

I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush.  But Rand Paul will be my first choice.  He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Online alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,839
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2014, 11:50:45 AM »
I will be supporting Rand Paul.  I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials.  The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians?  It will be quite a balancing act.

As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP.  I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support.  In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.

I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush.  But Rand Paul will be my first choice.  He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.

Not saying I'm superstitious or anything - but usually my first pick - the one I love the most that satisfies most of my desires - usually that candidate flames out early, and spectacularly.  I'm not going to invest myself too early because I seem to be a natural jinx. 

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,675
  • Congrats Donald Trump! 45th POTUS!
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2014, 11:56:28 AM »
It's easier to make the case for a presidential candidate if his CV includes accomplished governor.

Also, we tend to elect governors and believe they make the best presidents.

Seeing as Obama was an undistinguished senator when elected, look what happened when we broke that maxim and voted him in. Did God punish us, or what?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 11:59:19 AM by aligncare »
Some #NeverTrumpers are like the pockets of Japanese who didn't know the war was over

Online alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,839
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2014, 12:00:02 PM »
It's easier to make the case for a presidential candidate if his CV includes accomplished governor.

Also, we tend to elect governors and believe they make the best presidents.

Seeing as Obama was an undistinguished senator when elected, look what happened when we broke that maxim. Did God punish us, or what?

Senators make laws and spend money with no worries about consequences.  Governors have to stick with budgets, they can't print their own money when needed, and they have to manage state affairs. 
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,336
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2014, 12:18:23 PM »
I will be supporting Rand Paul.  I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials.  The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians?  It will be quite a balancing act.

As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP.  I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support.  In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.

I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush.  But Rand Paul will be my first choice.  He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.

In this very dangerous world, Rand Paul's potential foreign policy scares me.

Otherwise, he would be a strong candidate, I think.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,090
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2014, 12:37:28 PM »

The best thing Mitt could do for the country is to campaign for the Republican nominee by reminding people that voting for a president based on gender will be no more successful than voting for a president based on skin-tone...


"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"April Fools Day is the one day of the year that people critically evaluate news articles before accepting them as true." - Unknown

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,011
    • Auktion Online
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2014, 12:37:54 PM »
In this very dangerous world, Rand Paul's potential foreign policy scares me.

Otherwise, he would be a strong candidate, I think.

What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS.  And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment.  They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well.  They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created.  It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.

Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure.  I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.

And I don't mean a weak foreign policy.  I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick.  OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem. 

"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2014, 12:50:48 PM »
What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS.  And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment.  They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well.  They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created.  It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.

Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure.  I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.

And I don't mean a weak foreign policy.  I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick.  OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.

One has to demonstrate he will use the big stick, or have his bluff called.  I too can relate well to a more limited interventionist policy, but I also know that such policies after WW1 ultimately led in part to WW2.  We can of course hope that the void created is filled by counter-balancing forces.  China, Russia and Islam are moving to fill any void we leave.  Obama has helped create these conditions mainly because of his confusing moves on foreign policy. 

I agree on the big stick policy linked to light treading, but our Western partners and our enemies and potential enemies must understand where we stand with respect to that stick.  Interestingly, the Cold War was in retrospect a much more peaceful period.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,011
    • Auktion Online
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2014, 12:59:45 PM »
I agree on the big stick policy linked to light treading, but our Western partners and our enemies and potential enemies must understand where we stand with respect to that stick.  Interestingly, the Cold War was in retrospect a much more peaceful period.

So was the USA after the Civil War.  Do you know why?  Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII.  And Sherman as far as the Civil War.  Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars.  Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them.  Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage.  Instead, we are played for suckers.

"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,249
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2014, 01:24:22 PM »
So was the USA after the Civil War.  Do you know why?  Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII.  And Sherman as far as the Civil War.  Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars.  Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them.  Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage.  Instead, we are played for suckers.




And on that view Putin will eventually swallow most of Ukraine and the baltic countries, notwithstanding that the baltics are full NATO members.  If your opponent's position is no war or total war, then your approach is a series of low-level conflicts to achieve your ends because no one particular event will be big enough to justify an all-out war, and so your opponent will do nothing as you slowly achieve your goals piecemeal.
Trump does not represent the will of the people.  If we really wanted to respect the decision of "the people," then Clinton would be the president-elect, not Trump, for the simple reason that she won the popular vote.

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,336
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2014, 01:33:59 PM »
What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS.  And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment.  They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well.  They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created.  It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.

Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure.  I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.

And I don't mean a weak foreign policy.  I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick.  OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.

I'm open to the possibility that Rand Paul actually will 'carry a very, very big stick.'  It's early in the game so I haven't investigated thoroughly, but do you have some info that supports that he will not be weak regarding threats to this nation (as his father is).

I'm also a little troubled by the term 'neo-con,' since it's been thrown around so carelessly for so long, and as a broad brush attack on anyone who doesn't agree with isolation,  that it seems to have lost any meaning it ever had in the first place.

There are many gradations of degree among thoughtful conservatives, and I'm not sure that using a single generic word for ALL recent foreign policy is in any way meaningful.

Example:  The enemy of my enemy is my friend was a long time US policy (including under Reagan), and it caused many problems, some severe, and doesn't fit under the "neo-con" appellation.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 01:36:21 PM by musiclady »
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2014, 01:44:13 PM »
So was the USA after the Civil War.  Do you know why?  Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII.  And Sherman as far as the Civil War.  Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars.  Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them.  Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage.  Instead, we are played for suckers.

Even in the Cold War under the MAD concept, both superpowers used military forces almost like a chess game.  Both Dresden and Hiroshima have been questioned over the years as to the necessity.  Given the time of both bombings, the enemy on both fronts were no longer military threats.  The bombings were intended to end the war, not win it.  I'm not sure why that differs from the blitzkrieg over London.  If we maintain alliances and friendships, we will utilize our military from time to time as part of a larger foreign policy.  There is currently at the very least a cold war against the West. 

I do agree whenever we use military power, it should be with specific goals and missions, recognizing that after the first troop crosses the line of departure, the best of planning requires adaptability.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 29,290
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2014, 01:51:20 PM »

So was the USA after the Civil War.  Do you know why?  Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII.  And Sherman as far as the Civil War.  Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars.  Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them.  Otherwise, there should be no war.

If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage.  Instead, we are played for suckers.


Amen, Victor!   Amen!   :beer:



"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"If you want to change the world, go home and love your family".    ...Mother Teresa

"It's not the mountain before you, but the pebble in your shoe"      ....or something like that

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,710
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2014, 08:04:21 PM »
massadvj wrote above:
[[ ...And Sherman as far as the Civil War...]]

That ain't nuthin' to be proud of.
A dark moment in the nation's history.

It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.

"Marching Through Georgia" is still a hated song down South...

Let's turn the tables a bit:
Suppose it's Homeland Security forces ravaging through a conservative state today?

You gonna tout that, too?

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2014, 08:18:20 PM »
Quote
It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.

I thought the Confederacy and its current supporters didn't consider itself one of our own...
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 29,290
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2014, 08:20:01 PM »
massadvj wrote above:
[[ ...And Sherman as far as the Civil War...]]

That ain't nuthin' to be proud of.
A dark moment in the nation's history.

It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.

"Marching Through Georgia" is still a hated song down South...

Let's turn the tables a bit:
Suppose it's Homeland Security forces ravaging through a conservative state today?

You gonna tout that, too?

Come now, Fish...

Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone. 



"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"If you want to change the world, go home and love your family".    ...Mother Teresa

"It's not the mountain before you, but the pebble in your shoe"      ....or something like that

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,011
    • Auktion Online
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2014, 08:47:31 PM »
massadvj wrote above:
[[ ...And Sherman as far as the Civil War...]]

That ain't nuthin' to be proud of.
A dark moment in the nation's history.

It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.

"Marching Through Georgia" is still a hated song down South...

Let's turn the tables a bit:
Suppose it's Homeland Security forces ravaging through a conservative state today?

You gonna tout that, too?

As DC noted, I was not endorsing Sherman‘s March.  I was noting its effectiveness in achieving the objective of ensuring there would be no future civil wars in the USA. 
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,710
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2014, 10:04:02 PM »
DCPatriot wrote above:
[[ Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone. ]]

And his point was well-taken.

Do you think that sometime yet to come in the nation's history, there could arise another attempt to "change the fundamental structure of government" when the ballot box no longer works?

If that were to happen, and if the government were to respond with a "a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone", do you believe that it would be a good thing?

I await your reply....

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,011
    • Auktion Online
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2014, 10:15:23 PM »
DCPatriot wrote above:
[[ Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone. ]]

And his point was well-taken.

Do you think that sometime yet to come in the nation's history, there could arise another attempt to "change the fundamental structure of government" when the ballot box no longer works?

If that were to happen, and if the government were to respond with a "a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone", do you believe that it would be a good thing?

I await your reply....

It depends on the circumstances.  If the response were to put down a violent communist or Islamic insurgency in the USA I think I would want the cancer cut out completely.  If its purpose was to curtail basic freedoms, obviously I'd probably count myself among the vanquished.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,419
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2014, 12:27:54 AM »
Quote
Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand LI, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

~~~~~~~~~~~

In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

We've exhausted the treasury. Our weapons are dull and our soldiers spirits are weighted down by inefficient Generals. Leaner, ruthless chieftains are taking advantage of our weakness.

We're weak because victory was not our objective.

When war is declared, then war must be waged.

Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.

I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.   
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 12:29:11 AM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Online alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,839
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2014, 12:36:19 AM »
We've exhausted the treasury. Our weapons are dull and our soldiers spirits are weighted down by inefficient Generals. Leaner, ruthless chieftains are taking advantage of our weakness.

We're weak because victory was not our objective.

When war is declared, then war must be waged.

Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.

I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.

It's not looking good, is it?
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,203
Re: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2014, 01:56:17 AM »
We're weak because victory was not our objective.

When war is declared, then war must be waged.

Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.
When Japan then Germany declared war against us, we realized it and responded correctly. We fought to gain unconditional surrender, total victory, occupied and made permanent compliance certain.

Not so yet, regarding Islam's declaration of war against us. We have waged partial war, presuming our half-measures were enough.

Obviously they have not been enough. I've stated before, we should not be squeamish about killing enough civilians, to convince the societies we mean business, and intend to win at any cost.
#NeverHillary#NeverHillary#NeverHillary#NeverHillary#NeverHillary#NeverHillary#NeverHillary#NeverHillary


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf