NEW YORK - The two young men had woefully little in common: one was a wealthy Mormon from Michigan, the other a middle-class Jew from Israel.
But in 1976, the lives of Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu intersected, briefly but indelibly, in the 16th-floor offices of the Boston Consulting Group, where both had been recruited as corporate advisers.
At the most formative time of their careers, they sized each other up during the firm’s weekly brainstorming sessions, absorbing the same profoundly analytical view of the world.
See: Romney and Russia
Welcome the return of the neo-con crowd.
The relationship between Netanyahu and Romney - nurtured over meals in Boston, New York, and Jerusalem; strengthened by a network of mutual friends; and heightened by their conservative ideologies - has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics, and the Middle East.
When Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Netanyahu offered him first-hand pointers on how to shrink the size of government.
No wonder this state is in such horrible shape.
Related: MassChallenge studies Israel contest
Israel Eats Massachusetts Lunch
Why are taxpayer dollars going to build projects in Israel when we are facing social service cuts here?
When Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Romney counseled him on which US officials to meet with. And when Romney first ran for president, Netanyahu presciently asked him whether he thought Newt Gingrich would ever jump into the race.
Only a few weeks ago, Netanyahu delivered a personal briefing by telephone to Romney about the situation in Iran.
“We can almost speak in shorthand,’’ Romney said in an interview. “We share a common experience and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar.’’
**********************
The ties between Romney and Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government. And that history could well influence decision-making at a time when the United States may face crucial questions about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities or support Israel in such an action. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Netanyahu - a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.
In a Republican debate in December, Romney criticized Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend, Bibi Netanyahu, and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’ ’’
Oh, he would clear everything with Netanyahu first, huh? What do you want me to do?
Also see: Sunday Globe Special: Gingrich's Political Gaffe
Martin S. Indyk, a US ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not, Romney’s statement implied that he would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.’’
Already is and has been for years.
“That, of course, would be inappropriate,’’ he added.
He means it's inappropriate to say such things publicly, or point it out on a blog.
Netanyahu insists that he is neutral in the presidential election, but he has at best a fraught relationship with President Obama. For years, the prime minister has skillfully mobilized many Jewish groups and congressional Republicans to pressure the Obama administration into taking a more confrontational approach against Iran.
“To the extent that their personal relationship would give Netanyahu entree to the Romney White House in a way that he doesn’t now have to the Obama White House,’’ Indyk said, “the prime minister would certainly consider that to be a significant advantage.’’
It's almost enough to make me vote for Obama because I have two qualifications for president: does he stand up to Israel, and does he....
Okay, I have one qualification for president....
It was a quirk of history that the two men met at all. In the 1970s, both chose to attend business school in Boston - Harvard for Romney, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for Netanyahu. After graduating near the top of their classes, they had their pick of jobs at the nation’s biggest and most prestigious consulting firms.
The Boston Consulting Group did not yet qualify as either. Its founder, Bruce D. Henderson, was considered brilliant but idiosyncratic; his unorthodox theories - about measuring a company’s success by its market share and dividing businesses into categories like “cash cows’’ and “dogs’’ - were then regarded as outside the mainstream of corporate consulting.
As Romney recalled, the faculty and students at Harvard Business School routinely mocked the firm’s recruitment posters. “Boston Consulting was at the time a firm that seemed somewhat under siege,’’ he said....
Like Palestinians are now!
--more--"
"Fund-raising game upended in 2012 race; Public funds passé as super PACs dominate" by Brian C. Mooney | Globe Staff, April 08, 2012
As the general election for president unofficially begins, its funding will be marked by two firsts: For the first time in the post-Watergate era, neither candidate will use public funds, and the super PACs created as a result of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling will have their first chance to wield their unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions as the nation selects a president.
The vast majority of seven-figure checks is gushing into Republican coffers, making some Democrats nervous. On the plus side for the Democrats, their expenditures have been a fraction of what Republicans have shelled out during the contentious primary season.
Under the old campaign finance rules four years ago, Democrats had a rare lopsided money advantage over the GOP, as Barack Obama’s campaign obliterated all fund-raising records, taking in nearly $750 million.
Obama was the first presidential nominee to forgo public funding for the general election cycle, creating a huge advantage in his campaign against Republican John McCain. Neither Obama nor Romney will take the public grant this fall, giving up a projected $91.2 million in public funds for each nominee for the campaign’s final two months. Taking the public funds would have required limiting expenditures to that amount.
The Obama campaign has fallen behind its torrid 2008 fund-raising pace, and while Republican donations to presidential candidates have also dropped off from 2008 levels, the influence of super PACs, technically independent political committees, has filled much of the void on the GOP side of the ledger....
Democrats are struggling to adapt to the super PAC era. Early on, campaign cash was not considered to be a potential problem for Obama.
A review of data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics indicates that one weakness is a dropoff in money from Wall Street and other financial services executives, frequent targets of Obama statements and policies.
Then Mitt Romney shall be appointed, 'er, elected president.
For instance, Michael Cavanagh, an executive at JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Eric Vincent, former head of Ospraie Management, were listed in 2008 by the Obama campaign as contribution bundlers who raised between $50,000 and $100,000. They have since donated to Romney....
Jack Connors, a major Boston-based Obama fund-raiser who made his fortune in advertising, said overconfidence may be hurting the president’s fund-raising.
“Some people don’t see Romney as a threat,’’ he said. “They say, ‘Look how far behind Romney is with women; the president is going to be reelected easily.’ But I think folks will come to their senses and realize we have a fight on our hands. You can’t let one party or one special interest fight with F-16s and you only have BB guns.’’
Could we stop it with the war analogies when it comes to politics (or anything else), please?
--more--"
Also see: No Energy For Campaign
Or for reading the Boston Globe these days.
