[quote]CornSprint wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…
Both parties do it, have done it, and will continue to do it. For God’s sake, Obama did it in 2008 too![/quote]
Ok, you’re right. Beans has it correct about a general plan that allows you to function with 500 other people, but…Let’s grant that for the sake of argument Romney has not given us any more details than Obama did in 2008 (this is demonstrably false in my view, even if you are unsatisfied by the level of detail Romney has given in his general plan).
I look at two applicants for the position of CEO of a Fortune 100 company. 1) The person who currently sits at the board during meetings and 2) a person who is a potential replacement. I see that #1 was a community organizer, lawyer, and legislator before he sat in his current position. I see that when he was hired he gave no details on his economic plan and as a result of his mis-management the company has not grown and kept up with its competition. It is stagnating. I look at #2 and see that he previously started, controlled, grew, and ultimately owned his own company and made it very profitable. I see that he has 30 years of financial experience. I also see that he does not give any details on his economic plan to make the company successful and competitive. This reminds me of 4 years ago when I hired #1.
I see that #1 has had 4 years and done nothing. I see that #2 has not given me any detail whatsoever. I also see that #2 has a track record of success and a long long list of experience that #1 totally and utterly lacks.
If I am going to trust the economic health of the company to one of two people–neither of which have given me any details on what they plan to do–then the easy, absolute no brainer is to go with applicant #2 because 1) he has experience 2) he has experience 3) #1 already showed he was not up to the task and I have a lot of people riding on the choice I make 4) if 2 candidates avoid giving any details, then the only thing to go on is their track record and experience. #2 has it easily beaten.
I am not voting for a known failure. Period. So, while Romney may have not given any details whatsoever, I’d rather try my hand with something new than a known and quantified failure. After all, I’m not better off than I was and if the new guy can’t fix it either then I’m not any worse off than I would have been with the first guy, but I took a chance at fixing a problem he was clearly incapable of dealing with.[/quote]
Very good post Aragorn. A couple things to point out from my end though:
-Saying that experience and success in the private sector is a huge benefit when moving somebody into the position of CEO in the private sector is very valid, as this experience undoubtedly transfers nearly completely. However, as prior failed businessmen presidents have shown, this is not necessarily the case for the office of president.
-Current numbers are starting to move in the right direction, which makes me hesitant to call Obama a complete and abject failure. In a normal company, I would also imagine that the opposition faced in attempting to get anything done is considerably less than in politics. While arguing about effectiveness in leadership can be a talking point, this does make implementation of policy more difficult.
-For me, the office of president is about far more than just taking care of the economy. While I respect and understand how important that that task is, I also believe in the projections I have seen from a variety of sources that put America on the right track, regardless of whose policies go into effect. I am one who believes that the economy is too large a beast for one man to truly tame. On foreign policy, social policy, and essentially everything beyond the economy, I agree far more with Obama’s stances than Romney’s.
Again, all the points you brought up are why I understand why people will vote for Romney and why I will not lose too much sleep over economic policy that will come under him. It’s why I don’t demonize the other aisle-while there are some who I am sure are worth demonization, they are vastly outnumbered by those who have good, logical reasoning on their side (as you can see in this forum).
[/quote]
Ok. I agree on point #1–the potential carryover from business to business as from business to policy is not as great. However, I still feel very strongly that experience is INFINITELY more valuable than a complete lack of any experience. I could even have been pursuaded if Obama had been a 1-2 term senator and then a governor, then president. Even 1 full term of US Senate plus 1 additional term of Governorship would have prepared him for the kind of political moving he needed to be able to lead with. He had ZERO experience of ANY worthwhile kind and spent all his time campaigning for higher offices. This makes him utterly unqualified to me, business experience or no business experience.
Romney has both business and political experience. Both private and public sector. He is clearly and certainly a better bet from the experience angle AND the business angle.
#2–I’ll readily agree that political inertia and opposition can be much more intransigent than business inertia, both because of entrenched ideology and pork barrel/lobbyists and also because of the exponentially greater number of people involved in any decision than in a board room. However, I still hold that Obama failed, and I believe that if he is given another term the small moves you have seen will disappear based on his future policy choices.
#3–Readily agreed. Much,much more than the economy is at stake and I’ll never be one to deny that or try to minimize it. In almost any election I would agree with you but… I also believe that this election is a fulcrum point for our economic future as a nation, and that makes it much much much more important in my mind than it would have been as a campaign point in the last 3 presidencies. We are too far in debt, can’t pay it back, can’t pull in spending, can’t do much of anything. I won’t sacrifice it.
Socially I see no extremely disconcerting point on which you should be scared of Romney–I recognize you agree with Obama more, but Romney is not an ideologue–he’s practical as a politician and he successfully governed in Mass where they had a large Dem majority and rather intensely dislike the socially very conservative Republican candidates running for office. So as far as that goes I don’t think you need to worry too much, although he will likely make some decisions you disagree with, he won’t be scary and he won’t do tons of damage to liberal social issues like say Alan Keyes would try, or some Tea Party member.
On foreign policy I disagree with Obama, but if you like his decisions then yeah Romney is going to change policy for the worse in your view.
