How about that? If Romney wins, it will be in spite of the fact that most people dislike him. Hey, he might pull it off: Al Gore was seen far more favorably than George W. Bush, but he still lost (I know, I know, don’t even go there). Still, this is pretty bad news for Romney, on top of the Pew poll of likely voters showing Obama eight points ahead. People just don’t like the guy.
Any of you readers dislike him but planning to vote for him anyway? Talk about that.
Charles Cosimano says: The Pew poll system is so flawed as to be utterly unreliable. It is far better to go with Gallup and Rasmussen, the models are more accurate.
robert loftus says: Wonder why Reagan isn’t on that graph. In 1980 he had very unfavorable ratings at this time
in the cycle (if memory serves). And you can find history to show that no standing president
gets re-elected if he doesn’t have 50% plus in the general polls. Pew also notoriously over-samples Dem voters — likely, registered or just general. And what’s happened to Obama’s +7 bounce? Rasmussen and Gallup has a tie. Obviously I am voting against Obama (not for Romney, per se). If a pew pollster asked me — I would not have a favorable opinion of either Romney or Obama (Rod–seems like you might fit that category also).. Then when you look at the details of the Pew poll (last page) the breakdown of registered voters is (as best I can tell–Pew #’s don’t quite add up) — D 37/R 30/I32. Do you believe that D +7 is a reliable weighting of the current situation?
Face it–Pew has got a dog in this hunt and he has a “D” after his name….
soren says: Yes, I and appreciate the fact that people don’t like him. We need a president we’re allowed to hate.
Wesley says: I dislike him, but I believe he is the lesser of two evils. I was going to vote for whomever became the Republican nominee anyway. But it’s just our luck that the party elites and their Wall Street donors picked Romney for us. For a while now, I’ve had the temptation to think that Romney is probably the worst Republican nominee since Barry Goldwater in 1964 (And no I wasn’t around then.) But after the release of Romney’s outrageous and despicable “moochy 47%” video, I’m no longer tempted to think that Romney is the worst GOP nominee since Goldwater, I absolutely believe that. (And by the way, George Romney stormed out of the 1964 Republican National Convention after Goldwater was nominated and he said his famous line about “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”) I’m also shocked that any prominent conservative pundits would defend Romney’s remarks, but a lot have. A viable political party needs to rise up that will be the party of both the “bitter clingers” and the “moochy 47%.” Hopefully in the near future, a 21st Century Ross Perot will come on the scene and one that is politically competent, unlike Perot himself.
Mike says: Agree with the view that the warm fuzzies are not important, and faced with a disaster like Obama, just about anything is better.
jamie says: as a person, i’m not a huge fan-don’t really like people who say whatever their audience wants to hear. but then again, that would exclude most politicians.
he’s the lesser of two evils, because i agree with the republican party on more issues than the democrats.
Jen says: I had him already for a governor. So no, I won’t be voting for him. He’s a flip-flopping cynical talking head.
I’m writing in a candidate this year.
I will probably vote for him,but reasons are complicated. First, we need to define where we are and what we have, at present, in America.
Where We Are
We do not have a truly representative government; this is a fantasy of a brief period in the past that we collectively keep alive because it allows us the illusion of self determination. What America truly is, is a benign oligarchy. To state such is not to make a judgement, but simply to state a fact. The real power in this country rests in the hands of a proportionally small number of elites who occupy the revolving door between the upper levels of government and business. One only needs to look at the names populating the Department of Agriculture and the boardrooms of Monsanto, or the Treasury and Goldman & Sachs over the past 20 years to see the interdependent nature of the Big government and Big Business. This relationship produces neither democratic, nor republican governance, but corporatism.
The two major political parties are largely vying for power within this corporatist system. The Democrats want the federal government to be the dominant power in the relationship and the Republicans want business to be the one in charge. However, what doesn’t really change is that capital remains disproportionately in the hands of the elite. I would argue that this is the core of our problem.
Where We Went Wrong
When I say that I think the post WWII world has strayed far off track from where our nation should be this oligarchic corporatism is what I mean. It was not predetermined that we end up here, specific choices were made that lead to this. The push, by both business and government, to get more people into cities, the creation of Big Government, the business & government joint venture in the military industrial complex and the proliferation of darwinian capitalism all helped lead us to our current situation.
The reason this developed so far, so fast is because of the interdependency. Politicians create regulations and tax policies that make being bigger more advantageous. Wal-Mart can afford a team of lawyers to ensure they meet a variety of regulations and loop holes whereas a small business can not. Big Business in turn becomes the major source of funding for politicians. Favorable subsidies and agricultural policies allow the Monsanto’s and Conargra’s of the world to have monopolised the food industry. And again these large agri-businesses pour nearly unlimited funds into politicians coffers in addition to providing cushy jobs once they leave office. Both sides then play the game of blaming the other when they are really playing the same game. Republicans complain about Big Government regulation and Democrats complain about Big Business. But Big Business is served by favorable regulations and Big Government is served by Big Business.
What We Can Do
Specific choices could be made to better the situation. But with both parties so firmly entrenched in the current system change will require either crisis or revolution. (Let it be noted that I do not desire either- but I also fail to see another path to radical change).
There are alternative models out there that would allow for capital to be more widely distributed among citizens and therefore lessening the power of Big Business and Big Government. The best example is the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation, which survives to this day as one of the most profitable and largest corporations in Spain, and is comparable in size to the great corporate conglomerates of Europe or the United States.
From The Front Porch Republic:
Founded in 1953 by students of a rather remarkable parish priest, Don José Maria Arizmendiarrieta, it has grown from a simple paraffin stove factory into a giant corporate conglomerate with several hundred worker-owned firms involved in the manufacturing of the most sophisticated products, banking, retailing, research, education, construction, business services, and insurance. Today, the Corporation has €33 billion in assets, does €16 in sales, employs 104,000 workers, 81% of whom are worker-owners to whom they distribute 52% of the profits. But Mondragón is more than a mere “corporate success story.” It is a business model that is completely counter to the modern corporation. ..
But that is only part of the story, because Mondragón is more than just a business enterprise; it is a social one. It is of course a profit-making enterprise, but profit is not an end in itself, it is merely a means to a much broader set of ends. In addition to its normal business enterprises, Mondragón runs an education system, a university, social safety networks, retirement systems, research and training institutes—things normally provided by governments through taxes—and provides all on its own resources, without the help of government. The guiding principle is solidarity, people caring for each other with the help formal structures and institutions.
If this model can be successful in Spain there is no reason it could not be piloted here. It is this kind of radical thinking that will move us beyond the current corporatist stalemate we find ourselves in today. When you keep asking where I draw the line in terms of supporting others you are implicitly asking how much taxes I think I should pay and to whom those funds should go. My response is that this is the wrong question. Neither Big Government nor Big Business is the answer to the question “who is my brother’s keeper?” We need a new model that does not put all of the power and capital in just a few hands. The more people who have a legitimate stake in the game, the better off all of us will be. The more we look at profits as a means to an end and not an end in itself, the better “my brother” will be.
So Who Do We Vote For?
I have to admit that the more thought I put into this the less comfortable I am voting for anyone who is part of the BB and BG revolving door. Perhaps we should give up and focus on our local governments in the hopes that as a new generation rises our chances for real change will improve. But if we must chose I will still side with the Republicans for my three previously stated reasons.
The blue social model has failed. The Republicans have not offered anything as a replacement, but throwing good money after bad doesn’t seem to make sense. The Titanic is sinking. Do we go with the guy who wants to apply more duct tape or do we go with the guy who says the ship is sinking, every man for himself and try to figure something out along the way. We are getting wet either way; I’d like to get the pain over with now rather than keep hoping the tape will hold until it is too late.
Our future lies in our energy reserves. I can not stress enough how much this will mean in terms of jobs and foreign policy. While I think either party would eventually get on board I think the road will be quicker and smoother with a Republican.
Stimulus isn’t creating jobs. It may seem simplistic, but what we are doing isn’t working. We need to try something else.
Doug says: Yes: dislike him and will probably vote for him. Did you see that NYT piece about Chicago pensions running out of money? The article said,
“In the State Constitution of Illinois, it says that once you receive a pension, it can never be changed to be lower,” said Claire J. Murray, 69, who retired in 2002 with a pension of about $42,000 a year, based on 34 years as a teacher and middle-school counselor. If the money in the fund ever ran out, “the State of Illinois would have to pay our pensions,” she said. “We’re not just a pension fund, we’re part of the State Constitution.”
Romney is annoying but when I apply his point to this I find I agree with it. This country has 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Pensions are popular because pensioners believe they are less subject to risk than other types of investors because their assets are shielded by law from the discipline of the market. I believe this is pernicious nonsense. You cannot reduce risk by passing laws; all that does is hold taxpayers accountable for bad investment decisions. The US general fund cannot absorb these liabilities. Somebody has to say No. Obama definitely will not. Romney might.
Ampersand says: Speaking as an Obama supporter, I’m very happy with the most recent polling data. (I’m talking about the, ahem, collective results of all of them, not just this Pew poll.) I can’t wait to see the post-47% results. I doubt it’ll be anything bombastic, but every little bit counts.
Also, David Frum has a hilarious “maker and taker” thing going on his Twitter, right now. Everyone should check that out.
Netherbury says: I will vote for Romney, and I hope he wins, although living in Massachusetts as I do my vote means little. I don’t like or dislike Romney. He actually seems like a nice guy, but that is irrelevant. I see little evidence of a truly principled understanding of conservative governance, but I hope that he will have good advisers.
The main point of my vote will be a resounding NO to Obama. I dread the thought of four more years of his leadership and the individuals he would appoint to the Supreme Court were he to have the opportunity.
Sadly our choices are not very good this year. In truth, if “None of the Above” were an option on the ballot, it could easily garnish a majority.
Johnny F. Ive says: I think Romney’s problem is that his nonverbal/verbal communication style does not reflect the average Republican voter and he can’t hide his dishonesty. He lacks the ability to charm his target audience like Palin, Cain, and Huckabee. Obama has had a scary record but he speaks the nonverbal/verbal language of his audience. If Bush had governed these last 4 years the base of the Democrat party would be furious. They aren’t because Obama is there man and they can relate to him. People expect Obama to be highly intelligent and sophisticated. He is part of the party of Hollywood and academia. George W. Bush comes from a rich family but he knew that he needed to talk tough, hide his northern accent, use words his audience understands, and carry himself with a manly swagger. He rolled up his sleeves to show how he was a hardworking common man.
Brian says: Yeah, nominating a Wall Street based megamillionaire who supported TARP and instituted Obamacare lite isn’t the smartest move in the world for a political party that only has a pulse anymore because of the Tea Party, but then again, they don’t call them The Stupid Party for nothin’.
That being said, I sure hope the guy wins, even though I don’t plan to vote for him. He’s got no answers to the big problems, but at least he doesn’t revel in that fact like Turbo Tax Timmy did on behalf of the administration, nor does he pretend not to know the size of the debt, the way Obama disgracefully did just last night while joking around with that wrinkled old lech, before heading off to the $40K/head fundraiser with his salt-of-the-earth pals.
Netherbury-
Fellow Bay Stater here. It is odd that even we do not really have much of a feel for Romney. You’d think he would have left more of an impression as Gov.
JonF says: I was not going to comment since I am not voting for Romney– but the following statement demands asnwr:
“This country has 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities.”
Maybe– maybe not. But that is calculated over at least a century, maybe longer. And frankly you might as well try to predict the weather in 2112 as predict its “unfunded liability”. As a general rule iv ears is the utter, absolute max for any hope of reliability in any economic forecast. And even that is dicey- see: the failure of all those Communist Five Year Plans.
But even if you take the figure as accurate, but then amortize it over those hundred years, it’s not that scary at all: a little over a trillion a year. That’s a small fraction of total GDP, so it’s no scarier than the fact that my personal “unfunded liabilities” (i.e., my necessary living expenses between now and my demise) are considerably larger than my annual income for any given year.
rr says: Here’s another question: If Romney lose, will many Republicans mourn his passing from the political scene? My guess is that few will. Sure, they be upset that Obama won and will continue to loathe him and oppose him. But that isn’t the same as missing Romney and mourning a presidency that never was.
FWIW I say this as a conservative who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, can’t stand Obama, but can’t bring myself to vote for Romney, who seems more like Bush 2.0 to me. I live in a solid red state, however, so my write-in vote or vote for Gary Johnson won’t matter anyway. I sure won’t miss Romney if he loses.
Tmatt says: It’s hard for a First Amendment defender — religious liberty first and foremost — to pull the Obama lever this time, even though I remain a Democrat.
Linda says: For those questioning the Pew Poll, how about a Sept. 16-18 Fox News Florida poll. A state poll that is far more important than a total US poll.
Obama 49%, Romney 44%
Obama leading among women by 57% to 38%
Obama leading among Hispanics 58% to 37%
Obama has the edge on who would be better at improving the economy and creating jobs, 49% to 46% for Romney, as well as handling foreign policy 52% to 43%, protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks – 51% to 42%, and protecting Medicare for future generations – 54% to 41%.
pinkjohn says: My thoughts have been drifting there lately, though I am a committed liberal Democrat and will likely vote accordingly.
But a couple of things give me pause. Romney never demonstrated that he was a conservative when he was governor. He governed as a liberal Republican, a bit more fiscally conservative than the Dems but pragmatic and able to cross the aisle. If he weren’t trying to look like a Teabagger I would be much more tempted.
I actually think Obama could be politically brilliant, but we’ve seen precious little of that during this term. I think he can take credit for stopping the economic freefall (as much as any president can influence such things) but he spent all his capital on health reform and we don’t really know how it’s going to play out yet.
I miss the days when there was room for what used to be called “Maverick Republicans” like Lowell Weicker, Bob Packwood (before his disgrace), Millicent Fenwick and Sherwood Boelhert who could work across the aisle and build real coalitions in Congress. They could also argue the case for why environmentalism is conservative, why government should not control reproductive decisions and why low taxes are a good thing for most Americans.
If Romney was actually being the guy he was in MA, this is one voter who would be having a much harder time deciding.
Connie says: Yesterday, Rod wanted to know Pat Buchanan’s reaction to Romney’s “47%” remarks. Well, today Pat called Obama the “drug dealer of welfare.” I guess that’s an endorsement of Romney.
M_Young says: I’ve gotta say the 47% thing does bother me, not because there isn’t a whole but of redistribution going on, but because it is simply stupid politics.
However, as I’ve said, it is nearly impossible that a Romney administration will be as hostile to the interests of myself, my family, and most of my friends (aka white folks), as this administration is.
And surely the Supreme Court is the primary consideration. Republicans have given us some pretty bad Justices, but also some great ones. The Democrats have given us pretty horrible ones.
Maria says: @rr – Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 48 states.
MWorrell says: I vote based on policy positions. McCain drove me insane, he was so uncomfortable to watch. Voted for him. George W. Bush was fun when out of the spotlight but a nightmare in debates and speeches. Voted for him. Bob Dole: zero charisma. Voted for him. Obama and Clinton? Love that they answer questions in complete sentences, have to play defense not to be taken in by their smoothness (slickness?). But I didn’t/I’m not voting for them.
KateLE says: I wish I could remember who said this in 2004, but it’s like being asked to choose your favorite Menendez brother. Once Huntsman, Paul, and Roemer were out of the race, it was write-in territory for me. We deserve this. When some sanity returns to the primaries, some sanity will return to the country. Another few years, and the demographics break towards that outcome. There’s hope. I hope.
Beyng says: Polls like these are less than meaningless. I’ll let XKCD say it better than I can: http://xkcd.com/904/
Jon S. says: It’s funny how Mr. Crunchy Con has so much contempt for Mr. Romney who, by all accounts, is an extraordinarily decent man. A man who literally has saved drowning people. A man who cares for a family with a cancer stricken child. A man who buys gifts for those who lose jobs. A man who stopped all work at his office so all could work to find an employee’s missing daughter. A man who apparently was very diligent as a marriage counselor for his church. On the other hand, we have Barack Obama, who, according to the New Yorker, “A Democrat deeply familiar with the relationship complained that the press has often made it seem that Clinton harbored “lingering resentments” from the primary battle: “It’s always sort of implied that it’s Clinton’s fault.” The truth, he added, “is that Obama doesn’t really like very many people.” He ticked off the names of some of Obama’s longtime friends: the Whitakers, the Nesbitts, Valerie Jarrett. “And he likes to talk about sports. But other than that he just doesn’t like very many people”
None of this means that Obama is a bad president or Romney would be good. But it is fascinating how the man who is clearly the more caring, more decent, and, let’s say it, more involved in what we would normally called Christian charity, is the doofus, while the guy who, according to Ryan Lizza, doesn’t even like having dinner with his own family, is Mr. Likable.
Ping Lin says: Since I had a negative view of John Kerry and voted for him anyway in ’04, I can hardly complain about the Romney stats; it could be that likability is far less important than partisan affiliation.
That said, I remain confident that Kerry would have won had he been more likable than your standard gardening implement. So there’s that.
In keeping with the spirit of this post, I will offer the most Republican answer I truthfully can:
I really admired George Romney. If he had been the nominee in 1968, I might have been a Republican for the last 30 years. Once he was gone, I switched my loyalties to Eugene McCarthy. (I lived in a city where people answering canvassers at the door said “Who’s Gene McCarthy? I’ll vote for any relative of Joe.”
Mittens isn’t one tenth the man his father was. I’d vote for him before I’d vote for David Duke or Patrick Buchanan, but that’s about where I draw the lines. (No, those are not two clones — two different brands I wouldnt’ vote for. Even their racism is of a different kind).
I love the Mondragon model… but Mr. Bain is going to put us on that road? I don’t think so…
I too agree that the warm fuzzies are not a sound basis for voting. I’m as uncomfortable as anyone with those who adulated Obama. But, setting that background noise aside, I haven’t seen a president who thinks out what he’s going to do so well before he acts. His judgement on things that matter has been sound.
I’m a First Amendment purist too. I thought Elena Kagen was a poor choice. But I see no significant threat of establishment, or to free exercise, freedom of speech or the press or peaceably to assemble…
Michael says: I am not going to vote for Romney but it has nothing to do with his unpopularity. I am open like most of America to throwing out the incumbent. But Romney’s entire campaign is “I’m not Barack Obama”. Well, I’m not Barack Obama either and I don’t feel I am qualified to be President. So, Romney has to offer me more. What will he do to improve our lives, the economy, our foreign policy? Crickets. Hence, no sale.
Wesley says: If I was a white working-class swing voter in a swing state, I don’t know why I would vote for Romney after seeing Romney’s “moochy 47%” clip. I probably wouldn’t vote for Obama, because of his policies and his own “bitter clingers” comments. I just wouldn’t vote at all. The purpose of the Obama campaign’s anti-Bain ads was to demoralize Republican-leaning white working class voters. Well Romney has done it for him with his “stupid and arrogant” remarks.
Lance says: My vote is for Romney, though I don’t like him. The chief reason I cannot vote for Obama has to do with his extraordinary efforts to legitimize homosexual behavior. He shouldn’t be rewarded with my vote.
2nd Thought says: Romney may actually lose to an empty-suit incumbent presiding over a terrible economy and multiple foreign policy disasters. All he had to do was stay home, stay focused on conservative issues like debt, spending, border control, Main Street over Wall Street – and otherwise look pretty and keep his mouth shut.
Peter H says: Tom Friedman on Charlie Rose tonight: Romney gets in trouble because he’s trying to pretend to be someone he isn’t. (That’s a paraphrase. This next part is closer to a direct quote.) You could see this discomfort at the GOP convention. Romney is renting the party to get the presidency, and the party is renting him to get rid of Obama.
alcogito says: I am not in junior high any more so I don’t choose my lawyer, doctor, CPA by whether I “like” them. Their looks and charm don’t matter. Their preparation, experience and competence and record of success do. On these criteria, Romney wins going away, and Obama’s record absolutely disqualifies him. If everything Obama has done hadn’t made the economy worse (national debt going from $10.5T to $16T in 3.5 years!), the Middle East events of the last ten days would make the choice obvious. Of course, half the voters were too busy watching Letterman and Honey Boo to notice that.
Ampersand says: “However, as I’ve said, it is nearly impossible that a Romney administration will be as hostile to the interests of myself, my family, and most of my friends (aka white folks), as this administration is.”
I’m also white, and I can’t say that I’m aware of any hostility. Granted, I’m part of the 47%–despite working two jobs, I don’t make enough to pay income tax. Likewise, I’m uninsured, so Obamacare will be a great thing for me. Romney has publicly stated that he doesn’t care about either of those groups, and I tend to believe him.
Floridan says: However, as I’ve said, it is nearly impossible that a Romney administration will be as hostile to the interests of myself, my family, and most of my friends (aka white folks), as this administration is.
Being a white folk myself, I found this comment rather curious. Exactly what are the interests of white people? (I will refrain from asking who are the white people?).
Liam says: Excuse me but Romney was not successful in “managing” Massachusetts. He was not venal, but his general approach to “managing” Massachusetts was to defer infrastructure improvements (a very expensive, short-term, consultant’s approach to “management”) and spend the second half of his term largely devoted to preparing for the 2008 presidential primaries. He did get the first part of health care reform done; his successor got the much harder second part (cost containment) closer to done (there’s a third part probably that needs to be done).
Romney’s success as a manager is vastly overstated.
J says: In my view the national Republican Party is incapable of solving any of our problems. Romney was governor of the state I lived in and was nothing more than a cynical partisan operator who did no perceptible good for the citizens. What Romney tallies as successes in his life are things that in my life I would tally awful embarrassments (Mormonism and a life dedicated to ‘venture capital’ and political careerism), poor substitutes for real accomplishments (inherited wealth and high status used merely to accumulate more wealth and conspicuous but worthless status tokens), and outright failures (a life community and spouse without an original thought or creative commitment, plus five wisdom-free, talent-free, and creativity-free spawn-appendages).
All that being said, I think it would be better for the country in the long run if he wins. All the horrible and wrong and utterly foolish economic ideas accumulated within the Right need to be given their chance to emerge into the light and prove themselves. It’s probably also time to vote out the lazy and dysfunctional continuation of the economic status quo of the ‘centrists’ and center Left.
A Romney Presidency will be a failed four year Presidency. But it’s a failure we need badly, and I’m hoping that white conservatives in swing states turn out in droves to make it possible.
M_Young says: @Ampersand I’m also white, and I can’t say that I’m aware of any hostility. Granted, I’m part of the 47%–despite working two jobs, I don’t make enough to pay income tax.”
So Ampersand, do you think Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty of 2 million (for now) illegal aliens will help or hurt your job and wage prospects? Do you think an Obama appointed Justice will be more or less open to allowing discrimination against you in public sector employment and advancement?
@Floridian
“Being a white folk myself, I found this comment rather curious. Exactly what are the interests of white people? (I will refrain from asking who are the white people?).
Seeing as how you yourself identify as white, your second ‘unasked’ question seems moot. As for our interests, I’d say not being discriminated against in public employment is one. Not being flooded by an immigrant flow of literally millions, a flow that doesn’t “look like America” in its composition, is another. A third would be radical localism, so that predominantly white areas could govern themselves .
M_Young, there is a group in South Africa you might consider joining. Afrikaners who really didn’t like the post-apartheid government, but realized belatedly that if they really wanted to live in an all-white community, they would have to do all their work themselves, even going down into the mines and cleaning the latrines. Once you hire “others” to do the work you consider beneath you, there is no more benign separation to go separate ways in distinct communities.
Lance: Are you a GCFL subscriber, or is that another Lance? I wish President Obama had simply said that the constitution gives the federal government no jurisdiction over marriage, and he’s not going to use the White House as a bully pulpit for every controversy that hits the public square. Working on what he HAS been entrusted with is a more than full time job already.
But, he didn’t. I really don’t care about it enough to sway my vote either way. And wasn’t Romney favorable to gay marriage in Massachusetts? There is not sounder observation on 2012 than, Romney is renting the Republican Party to become president, and the party renting him to dump Obama. Most likely both will be disappointed by the bargain.
Ralph says: I like Michael’s comment: “But Romney’s entire campaign is ‘I’m not Barack Obama.’ Well, I’m not Barack Obama either and I don’t feel I am qualified to be President.”
Coincidentally, Michael, I am also not Barack Obama. And I’m pretty sure I would make a rotten President. I could not in good conscience advise anyone to vote for me.
(To be fair, who knows anything for sure in advance? Maybe I would turn out to be okay. I just doubt it.)
Be that as it may, I really, truly am not Barack Obama, and if enough people think that is the most important qualification, go ahead: put me in office.
Just don’t expect to be happy with the results.
I’ll vote for Romney and I can’t say that I really like the man…I don’t know him personally. I think it is a mistake to base any of your vote about who gives you warm fuzzies when he speaks. Rod, I lived in Louisiana for years and I was a registered Republican and pretty much voted along the Republican ticket except when it came to my choice for governor in 1983, 1987, and 1991. I voted straight up for Edwin Edwards because I felt as though despite his baggage in 1983 and 1987, he was the best person to govern the state because he understood how to govern( I thought Treen was out of his league and Roemer really didn’t understand the state and in 1991…well,,,my other choice was ultimately David Duke.)I couldn’t say I liked the man or approved of his personality or even how he sometimes said things. I did know however that he tended to govern somewhat effectively and understood the game of politics and making deals.
If you vote on who sends a shiver up or down your leg a la Chris Matthews , I think you make a huge mistake. Romney may come across as something of a plutocrat to some, but I look beyond that and see someone who has been very successful in managing things such as the Olympics, Bain Capital and Massachussetts. I’m not going to vote on celebrity or how compassionate I’m told someone is. My grandfather always told me to beware of the honeydripper and I consider Obama to be a honeydripper who sounds reasonable and caring but in the end can turn into an acid oozer.
I’ve worked in corporate America for over 30 years and have worked for many types of managers. I have found that the manager that makes you somewhat uncomfortable and says things that are extremely unpopular but true tend to manage the best. the popular guys worry too much about what people think about them.
Romney said something that is true- about 45% of the people who vote are going to vote for Obama and a good portion of them vote for Obama and the Democrats because they give the people something- in this case federal assistance and they will vote for the Democrat no matter who he/she is. With Romney being a manager, he understands the art of a deal and he’s proven it especially in Massa cusettes with his health reform,you may not like it, but he showed there that he was willing to cut some deals, make some compromises, etc. That is politics and that is how politics , at least in my mind is supposed to work. I have not seen where Obama has ever mastered or even attempted the art of the deal.