July 1, 2007
Boston Globe’s 7 pieces on Romney- A Pretty Good Endorsement
I finally had a chance to sit down and read the Globes 7 piece story on Mitt Romney. It’s worth a read if you have the time. Long, but full of details.
Before reading it what struck me, was the Boston Globe does a 7 article piece on Romney, and the most negative thing the public can take away from it is that Romney strapped a dog carrier to the top of his car. You would think with a paper owned by the NYTimes that has a penchant for negative stories on Romney, a little more could have been unearthed, but alas, that wasn’t the case.
Lets look at some of what they revealed on Romney.
1. College Days:
“He was just full of energy and excitement about the law and law school,” said Garret G. Rasmussen, who, by virtue of alphabetical seating, sat near Romney their first year at law school. “There was nothing jaded about him, nothing skeptical, nothing ironic. He was all positive, and it was a very refreshing style.”
“He didn’t mind if we were drinking coffee or having a beer, but that wasn’t what he did,” Serkin said. “We respected him for being true to what he believed in, and I found him to be completely open and tolerant to everybody else.”
On occasion, Mitt and Ann invited classmates to “family home evening,” a Mormon tradition in which families set aside time each week to spend together. Visitors to their house at the time, on Winn Street near Belmont Hill, remember it as modest, without any obvious trappings of wealth.
In spending time with Romney, “you got the feeling you were dealing with a guy with a very strong moral fiber who is very devoted to church and family,” added Brownstein. “You’re not going to hear from Mitt a joke at anyone’s expense, and you’re not going to hear any swear words. You know when you meet him and when you’re with him that you’re dealing with a very serious-minded guy.”
He approached his consultant job with the complementary skills that had been sharpened during his parallel lives at Harvard. His legal training taught him to ask challenging questions, to play the role of devil’s advocate, and to use an adversarial process in an effort to get answers. Business school developed his ability to reconcile conflicting data and differing points of view. It also helped shape him as a leader and team-builder
In 1997, he balked again, at the acquisition of a Los Angeles video distributor and movie producer that would be renamed Artisan Entertainment and become famous for producing the movie ”The Blair Witch Project.”
Romney worried that Bain Capital’s image would suffer from the perception it ”had gone Hollywood,” according to Rehnert, the Bain partner who proposed he deal.
Romney had another problem. The studio had an extensive library of R-rated films, which the Mormon Church discourages its members from watching.
Rehnert calmed Romney’s image concerns by enlisting a Chicago firm to join the deal, sharing the risk and deflecting attention from Bain.
Romney, balancing his duty to make money for his investors with his religious beliefs, let the deal go through, but declined to co-invest his own money, which partners usually did.
”I didn’t want to profit from a studio that made R-rated movies,” Romney said recently.
3. Family Life:
”Think about it,” Tagg says, ”a 12-hour drive and the only time we stop is to get gas. When we stop, you can buy your food and go to the bathroom, but that’s the only time we’re stopping, so you’d better get it all done at once.” Yet there was one exception to Mitt’s nonstop policy. ”As soon as my mom says, ‘I think I need to go to the bathroom,’ he pulls over instantly, and doesn’t complain. ‘Anything for you, Ann.’.”
Tagg didn’t get it back then, but now at age 37 he finally understands why his father has been willing to suspend his regimented ways when it comes to his wife. ”When they were dating,” Tagg says, ”he felt like she was way better than him, and he was really lucky to have this catch. He really genuinely still feels that way, thinks, ‘I’m so lucky I’ve got her.’ So he puts her on a pedestal.”
After these stories, the Globe goes onto a series of articles on Romney’s life in the Olympics and Governor. Granted, Romney does have critics their. What public figure who is successful doesn’t? And granted, Mitt is not perfect, there are some fair criticisms that can be made.
But I think what is most notewrothy, after reading the entire series, is that the Boston Globe has been following and digging up on Romney for years, and what do we get, a picture of an honorable man who has a strong inner core of values that revolve around his family and integrity.
This is video of Romney being asked a question while following him in Iowa a few weekends ago. I think it’s a good follow up to this.
http://race42008.com/2007/07/01/boston-globes-7-pieces-on-romney-a-pretty-good-endorsement/trackback/
July 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
So you’re asking us to nominate a Presidential candidate who goes to great lengths against R rated movies?
Do you realize how that takes the perception of the GOP among swing voters, and turns us into a laughingstock?
Most of the people I’ve persuaded to vote Republican over the years are the type of people who would hear something like that and run to pull the Democratic lever.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Oh, speaking of Mitt, why is there no post about the forum in Iowa yesterday? Is it on way sometimes soon? I saw one article and almost nothing is said about Mitt other than that the audience is not impressed with his answers. According to this same article, Tancredo was popular with the audience. FYI to you all, McCain and Rudy did not show up. Anyway, I am hoping for some more depth about this forum, and there is nothing like this site
July 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
DavidB, and how did Mitt go against R-rated movies? Did he say anything about policy or is it just his personal decision?
Everyone,
FYI, in a hurry, some interesting reading about how Hollywood are in movie-making not for money but to educate us in their own way. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199903/ai_n8848353
In summary, from 1988 until 1997, G-rated movie, on average, grossed over 17 times more cash than R-rated movie, but yet, only 3% of movies were G-rated.
I saw a updated research, going into 2000s, but as I said, I am in a hurry. Sorry. And no, I am not suggesting that Hollywood should be enforced by the government. Nor do I think Mitt is.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
DavidB,
You can take it that way. But I think it’s a good example that when it comes to making money, Mitt won’t do it in a way that violates his principles. If it makes Mitt a laughing stock to people with your liberal values, then I think it’s a net positive.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Do you realize we have to win a Presidential election? Are you in touch with American culture at all?
If you want to change it, great. Not by running a sacrificial lamb for the Presidency.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
That’s the difference between your philosophy and Mitt’s,
Mitt won’t sell out on his core values to win. But he will sell his core values to a nation that needs some, and in the process win. If you think that core values are unwinnable DAvid B, then perhaps you ought to think about why you are in this.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Uhhh… R rated movies. I think I’ll stay out of this one. Robert DeNiro is my hero, and I have a great appreciation of the depth and effort actors like him go through to become the character they are portraying. Also, the ratings system is so unreliable that it’s sometimes funny. Remember that Eastwood’s cowboy movies of the 1960’s, like the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly were rated R, but by today’s standards would probably be rated PG. In my opinion, the best movie of 2006 was far and away Letters from Iwo Jima. It can’t be compared artistically or content wise to a generic slasher that is over obsessed with sex and decapitations.
I will say that most G rated movies will gross more money because movies like the Lion King are aimed at children, who are more likely to see a movie on repeated occasions than adults. Also, anyone can attend a G rated movie, only 17+ are supposed to see R rated movies, so the advertising market is quite different.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Wow, you are defending and expanding on this point?
That the GOP wants a nominee who is going to SELL America on watching fewer R rated movies?
Are you in a time warp, half a century out of date?
Do you realize that is the kiss of death for the GOP? Your answers to this question indicate that you Rombots would RATHER lose than use a Presidential election to lecture America about 1950s family values.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I think you folks are confusing Church and the Presidency. Pure and simple. Will drive voters away by the MILLIONS.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I personally hate Hollywood because of its pervasive negative effects. If we were rational we’d have the same esteem for movie stars that we already do for drug dealers, lawyers and politicians.
We give way too much respect to the most unworthy individuals.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Dave,
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, not rare form for you.
I highly doubt Mitt will run on an anti-R rated campaign. But he will run on basic values, honesty integrity, families, etc.
I think your problem is, a socially liberal person, you hyave an agenda to wipe out Christian values. It’s quite evident from your postings. Remember, many Dems such as Blacks, Hispanics and Union workers, have strong family values, as do many independents. It’s why Marriage amendments have done so well. I think you are trying to rewrite public opinion in favor of your agenda.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
One last thing,
The R rating is not what to take from this. The thing to take is Romney was void of critics until he ran for Public office, and then his critics are always people who had something to loose by his successes.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
David B, I don’t think Mitt’s platform says anything about R rated movies. The Globe article refers to a private business decision. To me it shows that he has a lot of character to forego the profits he could have made because he disagrees with the products that the company produces.
Your attempt to extrapolate a private business decision made years ago into a primary component of his presidential platform is, frankly, laughable.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
All private business of a Presidential candidate is grounds upon which voters make their decisions.
Laughable? It’s your argument that’s laughable, coming from a camp that judges people on their divorces.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Once again, we see Team Romney willing to take both sides of every position depending on when it suits them.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article mitt romney Boston Globe’s 7 pieces on Romney- A Pretty Good Endorsement » [...]
July 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
David B,
Some how a judging someone on a contractual arrangement for businesses is ok, but for love it’s not? For some of these candidates there marriages where buisness decisions (i.e. Newt)
July 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
It’s ALL going to be fair game in an election.
Voters love Rudy and don’t care so much about divorce. They will care about a candidate who is against R rated movies and went to great lengths to work against them.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
David,
How are you still bale to post here? I thought you would have been banned by now.
Way to dodge the question at hand.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
SGS,
Did you read this article posted last night in the Essential Reads titled “Romney, Hunter Avoid Veto Pledge”?
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=99315
July 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Jason, I answered that question on the thread below (Q2 Predictions).
July 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
No you didn’t. How are you able to still post here?
July 1st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Aron,
Romney was quite right not to take such an obscenely broad veto pledge. It’s one thing to do as he’s done currently, and promise not to increase marginal rates, and another thing entirely to pledge to oppose each and every possible action that could be construed as a tax increase. That’s a highly irresponsible position to adopt (though frankly, I think all “tax pledges” are fairly irresponsible).
July 1st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Yes, I did. I wrote:
I’m sorry if I offend, but my remarks are not truly directed toward all the Mormons here, but instead at all the countless lurkers who read this site and are considering the candidates. I know virtually no Mormons are going to change their minds or have any real way to respond to the allegations at sites like exMormon.org, so all you can do is say “shut up†and call me a bigot and try to get me banned from the site.
But putting pressure on the site owner to ban me is exactly the types of tactics you want to AVOID. Because Republicans don’t want a nominee who uses those types of tactics. Especially when the allegations are of a real, humanitarian crisis– and one which is playing a role in the nomination we are talking about, in part because it would be a time bomb in the general election. Republicans want to win this election and aren’t interested in sabotaging it with this whole Mormon issue.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Matt,
You and I are not in disagreement. It would be foolish for any viable Republican presidential candidate to repeat Bush Sr.’s infamous “Read my lips” comment, especially as this nation remains engaged in a global war against radical Islamists.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pm
David B. I think the number of people, that view not investing in something as going to great length against it, are quite few. I also don’t think there are many people that are going to vote against a candidate because he doesn’t invest in Hollywood.
The idiotic attacks you bring up against Romney just about make one wonder if you really are a Romney suporter trying to cast Romney bashers in a bad light, and also trying to cast Guiliani suporters in a bad light – for you do both quite well.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
2 great comments Jason:
DavidB,
You can take it that way. But I think it’s a good example that when it comes to making money, Mitt won’t do it in a way that violates his principles. If it makes Mitt a laughing stock to people with your liberal values, then I think it’s a net positive.
That’s the difference between your philosophy and Mitt’s,
Mitt won’t sell out on his core values to win. But he will sell his core values to a nation that needs some, and in the process win. If you think that core values are unwinnable DAvid B, then perhaps you ought to think about why you are in this.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I don’t think David B is a conservative though. I think he’s an anti-Mormon posing as a conservative. You know, there are plenty of anti-catholic sites out there, but bringing them into a debate over politics would be tasteless. I think MOST Americans don’t particularly care what brand of religion somebody belongs to, but they want a president with good values and good policies. Thus, Mitt Romney leads in Iowa, and New Hampshire, the two states where campaigning has begun in Ernest.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Aron (#20), yes, this is the article I was referring to. As I said, it seems somewhat shallow in that it did not discuss in depth the replies from each candidates. In fact, I somehow get the feeling from the article that the author is pretty biased, be it toward or against. This is why I asked if anyone could post, or at least point toward other articles. I do not think this reporter is the only one who attended.
July 1st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Fred is no outsider.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
The greatest threat this country faces is not radical Islam- it is the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry is taking this country in the direction it wants us to go, and make no mistake, it will bring us down because we are only too willing to follow its lead, I admit I am one of the biggest offenders in this regard. I love the media, love to watch movies and TV, the internet, etc. All of this stuff just sweeps me along wherever it is going, but I can see where it is going and the result is not good. If Mitt Romney wins this election, it might stem the tide a bit, another Republican a little bit less but eventually our choice of entertainment will bring us to the point where we believe there is no right and wrong and that nothing matters except personal gratification anyway. Sorry to be so negative, but this is the truth.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 am
bit of a lurker here… but I’m just wondering why every post mentioning Romney immediately becomes a David B “I hate Romney, because he’s a Mormon, and I hate Mormons” spam fest? Even more, he doesn’t sound like either a) the evengelicals he claims won’t vote for Romney, or b) the typical, average liberal who Romney wouldn’t be depending on anyway. He sounds instead like an ex-Mormon with an axe to grind. My evidence? Again, lurker here, and I don’t read everything he’s posted, but take his citation to exmormon.org in this thread, and I saw him use the term “Morg” elsewhere (almost exclusively used by the most mindless exmormons around, think the kind of internet sub-culture term like *bush or repuglicon from Democratic Underground).
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 am
booooriiiing post. Then again, most pro-Romney posts are boring.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
I thought this was an absolute joy to read. I mean I’m pro-Romney all the way, but I wish more people could get a chance to read this. I mean, really, what kind of society are we devolving into when the only thing we hear from this piece is the dog thing, and David B’s idiocy regarding Romney’s hesitancy profiting off of an R-rated movie. Don’t we WANT a president with strong values? Don’t we WANT a president who cares about things like that? Jeeze.
BTW, Ann Romney made a pretty strong rebuttal to all the hullabaloo surrounding the dog escapade. http://fivebrothers.mittromney.com/blog/comments/151