RW Plow the road for Obama

[Judy1]

Romney has his "Dean Scream" moment this week by talking about how he enjoys firing people. This ain't going to fly with 99%.

Romney's association with Bain Capital is now coming under attack, shooting down his strongest claim that he is a job creator.

Fun to watch, and if he somehow survives this, dems will surely attack him on the same grounds in November.

But I think its always a mistake to run for government office on the claim that because you've spent a lot of time in the business sector that you are somehow are uniquely qualified to run a government. Government is not a business, its not profit based, its service based, and people based. I'd much rather elect someone who understands how government works, and makes appropriate changes to get the government to function better, than to elect someone who thinks that all you have to do is fire and deconstruct the government and somehow keep the expectation that the government will still be able to its job well. If you understand how the government works and make your goal a better functioning organization, you will likely suceed in cutting costs.

of course with republicons, I'm not so sure their goal is for government to function efficientlly, maybe they would rather disband it as much as they can get away with. Which kind of begs the question, why would you vote for someone running for government office who doesn't really believe in government in the first place.

 

[degsme]

Well I think a background in Business can make you a pretty good Mayor, maybe even governor or Senator. Because in each case you are essentially representing the business constituency and you don't really have to be building a lot of coalitions to get your job done (this doesn't apply in states with Weak Governorships or mayorships etc).

The issue really then is the national stage. See at the local level Government tends to be fairly hiearchical. A Strong Governor can push around the lege pretty effectively (unless its a Don't Care legislature like the term limited one in CA). But at the national level the Constitution intentionally hampers a POTUS' powers and requires consensus building rather than hierarchical management. This is in no small part why GWB was only really able to get legislation through from 2001-2007 and then that legislation was very much rubbberstamping his and REagan's policies.

Once he had to work with Dems "accross the aisle" GWB really faltered. Once the SCOTUS got involved in his approach to Gitmo, he found himself in a legal quagmire with no way out.

But the autocratic approach he took didn't work very well precisely because the process of building consensus DOES WORK. Its cumbersome and unwieldy but it does flesh out problems like the Due Process and Habeas issues that upset GWB's Gitmo plans.

And this is why Romney may have been an ok governor of Mass but would make a TERRIBLE POTUS. Consider how he would react if faced with the kind of unprecedented Just Say No filibuster that the GOP ran at Obama for the first 2 years in office? What he'd fire them? He'd give them bad annual reviews? He'd cut their bonuses?

 

[Friday13]

I may be alone in this, but I think there is something really lacking in Mutt. Look at his eyes...they look dead, like there's nothing there...

 

[Dawg]

99%....................gawd what a joke that has became