1. Romney has a resume that proves he can govern a state over one term; can put on winter olympic games and run an investment banking group. Any other conclusion you draw is simply your conclusion as he has nothing in his resume that says he will be a successful president.
While Romney's current credentials may be superior to those of Obama in 2008, he isn't running against Obama in 2008, instead he is running against a guy that has four years of experience as POTUS. Romney has no such credentials. He is, as I originally stated, simply a candidate for the job. That does not mean he can or can not do the job. We don’t know. He is unproven.
As of today, his direct experience for the job is inferior to the sitting POTUS. It will always be the case that a challenger running against an incumbent unproven with inferior experience as POTUS (Grover Cleveland and Teddy Roosevelt nothwithstanding). That is not an opinion; it is an undisputed fact.
As an unproven candidate, he has to sell his ability to do the job. I appreciate the fact you are sold, but not everyone is.
2. On the issue of the economy, Romney has not been clear about what he would do. In fact, he has been particularly to deliberately vague. He speaks only of deregulation and tax cuts, but no one really knows what that means. In fact, his website has NO specific mention of how he would fix the economy.
Issues | Mitt Romney for President
This is supposedly the number 1 issue of the election, and you have to piece together things on his website to understand how he would address the matter. No wonder he has not sold his distinguishing factors to the electorate.
It’s not clear what Romney would actually cut to make his budget add up
3. No, I said Romney has not sold himself to the general electorate.
Now, contrary to your suggestion, I have been to the Romney website (adn if you read this and followed the above link, you now have as well) and I bet I spend far more time listening to Fox, Rush, Hugh Hewitt, and our local con, Mike Rosen, then you probably ever spent on our side of the tracks. My first comments, though I acknowledge could have been clearer, dealt with Romney's failure to sell himself to the general electorate, not to me. I know what he stands for and I cannot be sold. In spite of the fact that I know where he is coming from, I find him to be obtuse and vague (and occasionally contradictory).
But that is not just my opinion, nor just an opinion from the left, it is an opinion of many observers:
Gingrich: Romney needs to present a "clear alternative" - CBS News
Romney Says Military Action Against Iran May Not Be Necessary - ABC News
Presidential Polls 2012: Romney is in Dire Straits, But Here Are 6 Things He Can Do to Right the Ship
Now, I understand why he needs to be vague. Because the tax cut and deregulation approach is fundamentally what Bush sold us and most attribute to causing the current crisis. Frankly, Romney would have a harder time distinguishing himself from Bush than distinguishing himself from Obama.... and the failure to distinguish himself from Bush is a huge problem for him.
The Washington Monthly
Ryan Can't Explain Romney's Tax Plan - Business Insider
Romney tax plan: Is it 'mathematically impossible' or not? - CSMonitor.com
4. Again, you are reading what you want to read, not what was said. I said,
"While much of the electorate blames Obama, substantially all of the electorate knows he was handed a very bad hand by Bush." That statement blames no one for the current state of affairs, its just a fact; almost axiomatic. In this instance, I was not saying it was Bush's fault or Obama fault. I said many people blame Obama, but most know he was handed a bad hand. You are free to blame Obama AND know he was handed a bad hand; or you are free to excuse Obama because he was handed a bad hand. My particular representation here did not take either position.
Now, I have whole posts on the particular subject, I was just trying to stay neutral here to fit the rest of my argument.
My ears are hardly closed to Romney. I am very aware of what he is saying overtly and covertly. I just happen to disagree with most of his approach. I find the idea of tax cutting our way into an improved economy is somewhere between nonsense and just flat out wrong (well debated in so many places, including by me), so there is no way I am going to support such silliness.
* * * * * * *
5. So, we are back to my original assertion: The fatal flaw of the Cons to date is to think you could win the race by telling us Obama is a bad guy. Unfortunately, that is only 1/3 the battle. You must convince us Obama is a bad guy first, then show us what you would do different and then sell your guy as the guy to get the job done. The reason Romney is not winning, is that he has failed miserably at steps two and three. The evidence he is not winning is in the battleground polls, where he is increasingly falling behind.
RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map
