Originally Posted by BWillie007
I'm with you on social issues, that is why I'm independent/libertarian. But all else aside, and focusing just on the economy, you would rather have it in the hands of a community manager, and not a high profile businessman?
I'm an independent as well.
First off, it wouldn't be in the "hands" of Romney, it's in the "hands" of the Congress. The POTUS plays a role in the laws but he's not a dictator.
Furthermore, I don't see how a "businessman" makes any difference, whatsoever. He can't hire and fire the Congress. He can't hire and fire Americans. It's not the type of "business" than can be run like a CEO runs a corporation.
Romney "might" have ideas as how to streamline government spending and run the country in a more efficient manner but if he does, we sure as hell haven't heard about it.
Now, contrast Romney with Ross Perot. Perot had a vision for streamlining government and a plan. He even bought network airtime to present his plan to the American people. He may have been a little "wacky" but one thing's for sure, he put his money where his mouth was.
Romney, despite enormous wealth, hasn't done anything even close. Furthermore, I don't think he has any passion to be POTUS (unlike the aforementioned Perot). He just sees it as another notch in his belt, at least from my POV.