I like Mormons. Okay, I don't know who were Mormons, but I met some nice people in Salt Lake City, and I'm guessing some of them are Mormons. Mormons seem to be "good, salt of the earth people."
Mormon leaders on the other hand.... They lead their flock of "blind believers." Who will believe what they are taught, because that is their faith. So Mormon leaders think that they don't need to justify why they think that believers go to "star heaven" and others go to "planet heaven."
(Not that Christians believing that some guy rose from the dead is NOT bizarre either...)
As a "corporate raider", Romney would take over a company (and maybe fix it) without giving specifics. After taking over, he would fire the (underperforming) CFO. "But, he's my brother!" protests the CEO. "Surprise!" says Romney.
When Romney took over a company, he didn't need to give specifics, if he gave specifics, they'd never put him in charge, knowing exactly how painful a Romney leader would be
As governor, Romney was bipartisan - by (as he claims today) not offering specifics.
He boasts that his success as governor was that he offered a direction, and let (Democrat controlled) Congress fill in the specifics.
Unfortunately, while "non-specifics" may have worked for Romney in the past, that's not what America needs now. Americans are less...trusting....that a Mormon congregation. If you want our vote, you need to earn it by telling us exactly how what you will do is better.
America is not a business. In business, it doesn't matter how unhappy the employees are - as long as money is being made. In America, it matters very much how happy the constituents are, and it doesn't matter (as much) if the government is turning a net profit. (It does need to "not collapse" under its debt load though. Which is why I was against the W Bush wars, and would prefer that Obama didn't borrow more money from China to hire more teachers.) But I don't think the debt load will collapse America in the next 4 years Under Obama. (Thank goodness for the current low interest rates....)
Finally, while non-specifics may have helped Romney in Massachusetts, he needs an "electoral mandate" if he's looking to lead a 50/50 split Congress (and American citizens.)
So, Romney would rather lose the election than offer specifics, since offering specifics is deeply ingrained from Romney's past as "bad."
His only specific cut: "I will cut funding for Sesame Street/Big Bird." has lead to protest. I'm guessing his other specific cuts will be less popular. And if Romney can't convince Americans that it's okay to cut from Sesame Street (which makes oodles of money off merchandising) - how is he going to convince America to cut from other things?
It is kind of late for Romney to offer specifics. Who knows what is going to be asked at the town hall debates tonight. And the last debate is on foreign policy. So unless Romney "knows" that someone is going to ask "What are your specifics" and Romney is ready to unveil his plan tonight... yeah, that's not going to happen.
So I'm probably going to vote for Obama, and hope he won't debt load America to ruin in the next 4 years...
No comments:
Post a Comment