Is anyone actually fired up about either of this guys because of what they have accomplished or bring to the office of president? Maybe it’s because I’m a republican who has a hard time feeling good about Romney, but it seems I can’t really find anyone who supports either candidate because of what their guy has accomplished or intends to do to make the US better over the next 4 years. Everyone I run into supports their guy because they don’t like the other guy. I’m really interested to hear positive reasons why people support either candidate.
I don’t know how it started, but American politics has been reduced to an infantile playground populated by reality show characters promoting a ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality, crowding out any room for cogent arguments or respectful debates that actually benefit the country. Many supporters of the republican party seem to be content with voting against their own economic interests, placing people in power that simply do not represent their priorities…Not a single western developed economy has its politicians pray at the altar of ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘political correctness’ as vehemently as the US…In any other western developed country…you win the election, you run the country…
I hate all the commercials I see pointing out all negatives and no positives. Maybe we need term limits to get certain people out of the house and senate.
To some extent, it’s always been a bit that way. Nostalgia tends to make it look more honorable than it really was.
But I think that media technology and the internet have something to do with it. Quite simply, it is less and less possible to have quiet agreements of “I’ll give you this, if you give me that,” types without a challenger casting it immediately as a betrayal of core principles. With print media and only three broadcast channels, the room for compromise was larger without putting politicians’ careers at immediate risk. As a result, we get intransigent parties that threaten to blow up everyone’s pie if they don’t get the largest piece for themselves.
I fully support term limits for Congress. I would limit senators to 2 consecutive 6-year terms and would increase the term for representatives to 4 years and limit them to 3 consecutive terms.
I’m not a fan of either candidate, so I’ll probably abstain from voting or see if there’s an independent candidate in the ballot.
Mitt has a pretty good head of hair, so that’s something.
I’ve had the chance to meet with many people who’ve worked closely with Romney and I’m fairly convinced that he’s the type of guy that is willing to do unpopular things because it’s better for the organization he’s leading. One example that rings in my head is when I spoke to a woman that used to work for him in the Massachusetts state government (and still does, under the current administration). She mentioned how often he’d take time to interview candidates for positions based on their credentials, instead of hiring based on political/monetary favors. People who work(ed) at Bain practically view him as a living legend that saved their company.
I’d like to consider what people are like before they run for president and have cameras on them 24/7 (Sarah Palin + cameras = mess). It’s a better glimpse of who they truly are.
There is a difference between running a company such as Bain Capital successfully and running for president!
The wierdest thing is they pray at this altar but their behaviour indicates that their intention is not to practice bipartisanship. I prefer my own parlimentary dictatorship for all its faults relative to what they have in the states. its an effin gong show down there.
I’ve been out of the US for awhile now, don’t watch TV, don’t read the news. Totally out of the loop so sorry for the basic question…
** DO EITHER OF THESE GUYS ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN? **
The country has a serious financial problem. Run the government expected cash flows out and discount it back, what is it these days, negative $85 trillion NPV? So what’s the plan?
I don’t know a lot about the Canadian system of government.
However I believe when something isn’t working it’s time to try something different. After a society lasts a couple hundred years it is natural that it’s going to get “stuck in a rut” where the way that worked before, just isn’t working anymore.
I’ve vote for a change to get us thru a new age, not sure what a “parliamentary dictatorship” is exactly, sounds interesting, but certainly something that ends the arguing/procrastination and starts the ACTION is what is needed.
BTW Mitt does a some nice hair, just Googled him.
Governor of Massachusetts also, which is as Democrat a state as they come, so getting anything done requires quite a bit of political savvy as a Republican. A lot of people hated him cause he downsized a lot of corrupt programs (i.e. MassPort) and was demonized by the press (Boston Globe is owned by NYT and is very liberal). When he pressured William Bulger (brother of Whitey Bulger) to resign as president of UMass due to refusing to cooperating with the FBI, the Globe labelled Romney as an “enemy of education”.
Not the biggest fan of either candidate, but I’d have to pick Romney. As MCalamari said, he seems like someone that would make the difficult choices. He’s not that exciting to watch, but if he really follows through on that instead of the populist route, then it would be amazing for the country.
Well, either of them has to be somewhat populist - don’t forget that both have made many promises to donors, special interest groups, etc. One could even argue that Obama can afford to be more independent than Romney, since Obama will not run for reelection in 2016.
I would personally support Romney, but for purely selfish reasons. Neither candidate is objectively better or worse for the economy - it depends on ideology.
Saved the company? Wasn’t he the founder?
He founded Bain Capital, but he was also the CEO of Bain Consulting. He brought Bain Consulting back from the edge of bankruptcy.
Obama, because he’s trying to deal with reality.
Check out the response to question #7 in this recent poll.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files/poll%20responses%20by%20party%20ID.pdf
The problem is they both have to be populist in order to govern. This is politics, not business, Dealing with an array of people that you absolutely must work with yet have their own vested and competing interests makes being a politician far less straightforward then a business manager.
^ No I understand that. But, I’ve been fairly disappointed to the degree to which Obama has exercised a populist tone.
@frisian: nice survey.