Has everyone forgotten that George W Bush was also a business man. Woopity freaky doo. Look where that got the country.

Besides, how can anybody believe anything Romney says. Last night he ran away from everything he said during the primaries.

Romney governed in MA with and 87 % dem legislature. At least he has a track record of making it happen. Obama hasnt even attempted to develop relationships on the hill. Romney isnt an all or nothing type as evidenced last night and must be a supreme negotiator to successfully run a co like Bain

Here's the thing - we are in the a game of politics in the extreme. As long as we have Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi style politics, you are not going to get compromise. As long as one party doesn't respect the President, you are not going to get compromise.

The problem is, compromise is what we need. We need to cut spending and to increase revenue (taxes). As long as either candidate is saying he won't do one or the other, he is either lying or unrealistic. And none of it matters, as long as Congress stands in the way.

I frankly think Obama has had his chance. The only way he is going to get something done is if both houses of Congress are democratic, but that is unlikely to happen. He had both houses Democratic in his first two years, and he chose to force through Obamacare without a true vote, which is what really caused the Republicans to hole up to the dismay of John Boehner.

Romney has a chance, but not if the Democrats decide to do what the Republicans did. I'd like to think that maybe we can elect a grown up now and then who will do what the country needs and not what the party needs. Romney did say one thing that stuck with me last night. When it comes to the budget, his limitmus test for spending - Is this program worth going into debt to China to pay for it?

My hesitation in voting for Romney is women's reproductive rights. I actually don't know what I am going to do. I do know that it doesn't much matter what I do, I live in Maryland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a world of difference between being a business executive (or, I would say, a corporate raider) and the executive branch of govt. What on earth is your evidence that Romney "knows how to get people to come to consensus in order to move forward." The whole point of being an executive is that you make a decision, you don't have to convince anyone that it's in their best interests, and frankly if makes you a buck and costs them $10 you still made the "right" decision.

Bottom line is that the president has very little he can do to affect the economy, and the things the govt can do they won't under either candidate because Obama is unwilling to do anything that might be "radical" and the R's wouldn't let him anyway.

Actually, you do have to use consensus when merging companies. Otherwise the unions will block the merge with lawsuits or stage a walkout.

He didn't merge companies, he bought them and took them over. Completely different.

If Romney gets elected the Democrats will follow the same game plan the Republican used. They will fight them on everything, no confirmation, slow and block all republican plans, and fight any that pass in the courts.

I thought "principal versus executive leadership" meant Obama comes across as a principal while Romney comes across as an executive.

OP here - just wanted to say thanks for no vitriol responses

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand the mindset that says "we'll reward the Republicans for refusing to work with the president by voting for the Republican nominee".

Also, I don't trust the republicans to reduce debt. Looking at their history both in Congress they drive up debt through tax cuts. If you think the country needs tax cuts then vote for Romney.

I get it. But I also don't can't agree with "let's vote for Obama because the Republicans haven't played fair." Life isn't fair. Politics is never fair.

I understand politics isn't "fair" but I am sure not going to "incentivize" obstructionism by rewarding it. That's bad parenting and bad politics.

But Romney wasn't part of block and blame... so why would you punish him for the practices of others? That is bad parenting and bad politics as well.

It's not punishing Romney-- it's just not rewarding him for the obstructionism of the Senate Republicans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand the mindset that says "we'll reward the Republicans for refusing to work with the president by voting for the Republican nominee".

Also, I don't trust the republicans to reduce debt. Looking at their history both in Congress they drive up debt through tax cuts. If you think the country needs tax cuts then vote for Romney.

I get it. But I also don't can't agree with "let's vote for Obama because the Republicans haven't played fair." Life isn't fair. Politics is never fair.

I understand politics isn't "fair" but I am sure not going to "incentivize" obstructionism by rewarding it. That's bad parenting and bad politics.

But Romney wasn't part of block and blame... so why would you punish him for the practices of others? That is bad parenting and bad politics as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand the mindset that says "we'll reward the Republicans for refusing to work with the president by voting for the Republican nominee".

Also, I don't trust the republicans to reduce debt. Looking at their history both in Congress they drive up debt through tax cuts. If you think the country needs tax cuts then vote for Romney.

I get it. But I also don't can't agree with "let's vote for Obama because the Republicans haven't played fair." Life isn't fair. Politics is never fair.

I understand politics isn't "fair" but I am sure not going to "incentivize" obstructionism by rewarding it. That's bad parenting and bad politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To start... please no polarization and vitriol. If you want to go there, start your own thread. I am looking for meaningful replies.

I am one of those undecided voters. I voted for Obama in 2008. I am disappointed - but I don't blame Obama. First, he inherited a HUGE mess (but he knew what he was inheriting... it was no secret). Second, the Republicans have blocked a lot of legislation to get the economy back on track (block and blame game). That said... if Obama is reelected, what will change? Will the Republicans stop the block and blame game? Part of me hopes they'll see the light and do what is right for all of us, but I know they are politicians and out to protect their party above representing their constituents.
So, there's Romney. He is not to responsible for or involved in the block and blame game (although Ryan is culpable). He has business acumen. He is an executive leader that knows how to make tough decisions that may be unpopular but the right thing to do. He knows how to get people to come to consensus in order to move forward.
I want to vote for Obama out of principal - he's been trying, and the economy would not be as bad if the Republicans had not played a political game with our future in the hopes of winning the White House this year. But....
I want to vote for Romney so this economy will turn around.
What matters more - principal, or the economic vitality of the U.S.?

Thoughts? Opinions?

I think Romney's "business acumen" is to buy struggling companies, leverage them to the hilt, and pocket the profits. Is this what he has in mind for America?

The entire private equity business model is built on debt. Why should we give him the keys to our Treasury? I'm being serious.

I know you're being serious. However, there's more to Romney than Bain Capital. Do more than listen to political rhetoric on his work history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

Oh yes, there's also the SLC olympics, where he got billions of fed. $ (more than any other US games) to put on an athletic competition-- and leave his buddies with millions of $ worth of infrastructure improvements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand the mindset that says "we'll reward the Republicans for refusing to work with the president by voting for the Republican nominee".

Also, I don't trust the republicans to reduce debt. Looking at their history both in Congress they drive up debt through tax cuts. If you think the country needs tax cuts then vote for Romney.

I get it. But I also don't can't agree with "let's vote for Obama because the Republicans haven't played fair." Life isn't fair. Politics is never fair.

No-- vote for the person you think has the best policies, but don't vote for someone because you think things are more likely to get done-- because what gets done might be worse than doing nothing.

And I'm of the opinion that doing something is better than nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To start... please no polarization and vitriol. If you want to go there, start your own thread. I am looking for meaningful replies.

I am one of those undecided voters. I voted for Obama in 2008. I am disappointed - but I don't blame Obama. First, he inherited a HUGE mess (but he knew what he was inheriting... it was no secret). Second, the Republicans have blocked a lot of legislation to get the economy back on track (block and blame game). That said... if Obama is reelected, what will change? Will the Republicans stop the block and blame game? Part of me hopes they'll see the light and do what is right for all of us, but I know they are politicians and out to protect their party above representing their constituents.
So, there's Romney. He is not to responsible for or involved in the block and blame game (although Ryan is culpable). He has business acumen. He is an executive leader that knows how to make tough decisions that may be unpopular but the right thing to do. He knows how to get people to come to consensus in order to move forward.
I want to vote for Obama out of principal - he's been trying, and the economy would not be as bad if the Republicans had not played a political game with our future in the hopes of winning the White House this year. But....
I want to vote for Romney so this economy will turn around.
What matters more - principal, or the economic vitality of the U.S.?

Thoughts? Opinions?

I think Romney's "business acumen" is to buy struggling companies, leverage them to the hilt, and pocket the profits. Is this what he has in mind for America?

The entire private equity business model is built on debt. Why should we give him the keys to our Treasury? I'm being serious.

I know you're being serious. However, there's more to Romney than Bain Capital. Do more than listen to political rhetoric on his work history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand the mindset that says "we'll reward the Republicans for refusing to work with the president by voting for the Republican nominee".

Also, I don't trust the republicans to reduce debt. Looking at their history both in Congress they drive up debt through tax cuts. If you think the country needs tax cuts then vote for Romney.

I get it. But I also don't can't agree with "let's vote for Obama because the Republicans haven't played fair." Life isn't fair. Politics is never fair.

No-- vote for the person you think has the best policies, but don't vote for someone because you think things are more likely to get done-- because what gets done might be worse than doing nothing.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand the mindset that says "we'll reward the Republicans for refusing to work with the president by voting for the Republican nominee".

Also, I don't trust the republicans to reduce debt. Looking at their history both in Congress they drive up debt through tax cuts. If you think the country needs tax cuts then vote for Romney.

I get it. But I also don't can't agree with "let's vote for Obama because the Republicans haven't played fair." Life isn't fair. Politics is never fair.