I didn’t say the regulatory system was the only reason businesses fail. Yeah, I know that you could totally do away with every single regulation on the books and you’d still have some failures, for a variety of different reasons. But whatever those reasons might be, they would more likely than not be due to a bad business model, or some other kind of systemic internal problem, or maybe the failed company just couldn’t compete for whatever reasons.

But the current regulatory system is probably the number one reason for business failure today. Yes, more so even than high taxes. And this was true before Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley, and Dodd-Frank. Those things need to be repealed, but we need to go way beyond them.

My point wasn’t that Bain was a bad company, it was that it is geared to thrive under the current regulatory system, and I can’t see Romney doing anything about it.

And saying its not his place is a dodge. If that’s true why the hell don’t they all shut the fuck up about reforming regulations?

I think that an outfit like Bain would actually do better in a cleaner regulatory environment.  After all, they make money by going in and correcting those internal problems and putting the business on the right course.  And that’s a hell of a lot easier to do when the problem isn’t the government, but the bonehead running the company.  And there’s never a shortage of those.

I’m not saying it’s not his place to fight against the modern regulatory state.  I think that it would be great if the President put a giant break on the executive usurpation of legislative power.  Sadly, the only candidate that I think would actually do much in that regard as President would be Ron Paul. 

My point is that, realistically, once a President gets in office, it’s no longer about “the regulatory infrastructure,” but “my regulatory infrastructure.”  It’s simply human nature, not unlike candidate Obama poo-pooing signing statements by other Presidents and embracing his own.  I’d love to be proven wrong.

Of course, there’s also the natural discount factor that you have to apply to any campaign rhetoric when considering actual execution of the office.  I was just focused on the difference between what the candidate says (even if he really truly cross his heart means it) and what’s likely to happen after he’s elected.  There are a zillion reasons, of course, some reasonable, some not, but the end result still sucks.

I’m afraid our best hope now may be that Romney does a Chris Christie like performance once elected (yes, yes, lots of assumptions in that, but focus on the actual point, please…and I did say that I fear it!).  In other words, I don’t think anyone expected Christie to be as effective in pushing back against the status quo as he has been in NJ.  I certainly didn’t.  It’s not a very realistic hope, of course.

Thank you for admitting that Mitt Romney would not be worth a fried-diddly fuck as a leader.

You’re just wrong about that. There’s no way they could possibly do as well if there was significant regulatory reform. They could still do well, but the pickings would be slimmer because there wouldn’t be nearly as many companies in distress. And remember, they are not the only company of that type out there, they do have competition.

Exactly.

Look, I’m still examining Mitt’s work at Bain – haven’t made up my mind yet – but, if you’re going to attack his work there, do it, dammit, from a conservative perspective and not by following the Leftist Playbook.

Will they be sitting together on a couch???

Perry has his own green scam issues.  It probably wouldn’t be smart for him to open that can of worms…but he probably will.

Romney could turn these attacks around (they are a hazard; the Dems have been preparing that playing field).  If he can form a rebuttal – firing people (the workers that is, he has to play up a little populism here) isn’t fun and is deadly serious stuff, but sometimes it’s necessary in order for other opportunities for workers to open up — and the worst situation of all is a stagnant economy where there are no more opportunities — then he can do good damage control.
Romney has to get out there with the “I never said I was a man of the people, but I endeavor to always be a man FOR the people”.  Sometimes the best ideas really do come from the simplest of places.  Of course, he’ll have to craft a platform that actually does this…by listening to the people.

I’m not at all thrilled with him as the nominee, and won’t vote him in the primaries — but if he’s going to be it, then he needs to be working on this.

Exactly what I’ve been doing. To wit, how can we trust Romney to reform (or to lead in the reform of) an oppressive regulatory system that enables his company and others like it to thrive?

It’s no surprise that we in New England call him “Mittens” – Bob, sounds like you are in NE, too.

I am. Sadly, I live in one of the blue parts and not New Hampshire – a situation the wife and I are hoping to rectify within a few years.

 Hee.  They freaked out because they were afraid that Goldwater might start a nuclear war, now they’re panicked that Paul won’t.

Because not starting a war is totally dangerous.

Uh, what?  It’s good to “crab about” liberals and progressives regardless of party affiliation.

scary, Obama could improve the regulatory climate tomorrow by issuing an executive order to the EPA to knock off the extra regulations (not laws) it’s issued. The Executive has plenty of power to throw around.