Romney vs. Obama: Leadership and the enemies list

By Jack and Suzy Welch
April 11, 2012

Remember that incompetent boss you used to have? He was a good guy and all, but he just couldn’t make decisions or prioritize. Perhaps worst of all, he tried to make everyone happy, resulting in almost everyone being angry or confused or both. And remember how long it took management to move him out – and how aggravating that was?

Of course, at the time, you sort of understood why the Bigs had promoted the guy in the first place, and why they held out hope for so long. He’d been a superstar salesman. Best the company had seen in ages. But in the end, it turned out that all the things that made him great as an individual performer made him lousy as a people manager.

It happens all the time at work. A brilliant engineer promoted to run R&D. A gifted reporter elevated to editor. A cutting-edge scientist made head of the lab. First cheers. Then, after a bit, confusion about organizational direction, mixed signals about values, hurt feelings left and right and, eventually, chaos.

Look, in business, some people can really knock it out of the park in their current jobs. They just can’t lead.

Smart companies get that reality. In fact, most have learned the hard way that actually being a great leader involves unique skills that even the most promising candidate for a leadership job simply may not possess.

But do the American people get that reality, too?

You have to wonder. Because there’s an awful lot of noise out there right now about campaign styles. President Obama has a reputation built on his soaring oratory, while Mitt Romney, clearly no fan of crowd scenes, can’t seem to get through a week without an awkward (or worse, foot-in-mouth) moment.

The president really knows how to run for office, the pundits note. Romney – not so much.

As if it matters.

It doesn’t, of course. Just as in business, in politics, being very good at one job (like delivering well-written speeches from a teleprompter) doesn’t necessarily make you very good at the next (like leading the free world).

What voters need to do right now is stop focusing on stump skills, or lack thereof, and start fixating on which candidate will be the better president once the campaign is long over. They need to stop asking, “Who’s more appealing on TV?” and start asking, “Who’s got the right stuff to get America working again?”

Yes, in some part, every person’s answer to that question will be driven by the issues – from healthcare to taxes to energy policy. And in this election, the ideological divide is stark indeed, with Obama supporting government centralization that borders on European-type socialism and Romney in favor of decentralization, state and individual rights and free-market capitalism.

Stark, too, is the difference between the candidates’ leadership styles.

Over the past three years, Obama has taken a sort of divide-and-conquer approach, amassing a list of enemies that would make Richard Nixon proud – bankers, healthcare insurance providers, oil companies, wealthy taxpayers, Congress and, most recently, the Supreme Court. Surely his supporters must think this particular tactic is effective, but there can be no denying that the country is more polarized than when Obama took office.

Without doubt, Romney is not the model leader (his apparent lack of authenticity can be jarring), but he has a quality that would serve him well as president – good old American pragmatism. Perhaps that’s the businessman in him. Or perhaps you just learn to do what you’ve got to do when you’re a GOP governor in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts or the man charged with salvaging the scandal-ridden Salt Lake City Olympics. If Romney’s long record suggests anything, it’s that he knows how to manage people and organizations to get things accomplished without a lot of internecine warfare.

Look, Obama may be a great campaigner and Romney (to date) somewhat the opposite. But neither man is running to be Campaigner-in-Chief.

In politics, as in business, the leader’s job needs to be filled by a leader, and no effective leader, regardless of ideology, keeps an enemies list.

Jack Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University. Suzy Welch is an author, speaker and the former Editor of the Harvard Business Review.

PHOTOS: U.S. Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign event in Wilmington, Delaware April 10, 2012. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about tax fairness and the economy at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, April 10, 2012. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

32 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Perhaps the question we should ask is: Which one of these two men is the bigger Crony Capitalist who will contribute more to the further destruction of the middle class in the next four years?

Maybe that is the most important question.

I honestly don’t know which one of them is more toxic in that area.

Posted by bryanX | Report as abusive

So, Romney is the engineer in charge of a R&D department? The president must speak perfectly (normally from a teleprompter) to be a great president. Virtually all famous and beloved politicians and leaders are great orators. So though I know it irks you, I think your article is a great plug for Obama over Romney. Romney may very well have one of those foot-in-mouth moments you mentioned while addressing the UN, or the Chinese or Russians or whomever.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive

As someone right in the middle of the middle class I find it amazing that most people don’t see that we are currently headed to the exact same finish as our European friends. Our government will NEVER be able to operate anything to do with commerce (post office, housing, healthcare, etc..) efficiently!! Therefore I will ALWAYS make the case that less government is better for our economy. As a Country we need to worry more about how we run our Country (business) and less about what other people think about us. That means sometimes you have to make decisions that are best for the masses, knowing that you can’t please everyone.

Posted by AverageJoe | Report as abusive

Holy smoke and mirrors. By your definition of an enemies list, Jesus would look belligerent. (See Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27 and Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8 for damning evidence.)

Mr Welch, given your newly professed distaste for unpleasantness, can we safely assume that you opposed enemies-list complier extraordinaire Richard Nixon in 1972? Similarly, Mrs Welch, you must have urged your parents to support McGovern in that election, no?

Posted by TobyONottoby | Report as abusive

Wow, your piece reads like it’s making excuses for Mitt Romney and an attempt to discount one of Obama’s important leadership strengths. We only have to look back as far as the last President, Bush, to see that one’s abilities as President aren’t necessarily disconnected from their oratory skills. Bush proved inadequate at both.

We have to judge Romney on something, or would you just prefer Americans to base their decision on who runs the greatest quantity of attack ads? Yes, oratory skills are an important leadership attribute. You’re denying that and you’re just wrong. I shouldn’t have to say public speaking skills aren’t everything, but don’t pretend they don’t matter. They do. Reagan earned his most enduring nickname that way, as the Great Communicator. You are suggesting that Reagan’s public communication skills played no roll in his effectiveness as a leader. I strongly disagree.

Romney is a poor public speaker. He appears awkward as he attempts to cavort among crowds of average Americans. He’s just not used to being around so many average Americans. He wasn’t a particularly effective governor of Massachusetts (which is why he rarely talks about his one term as governor of that state) and his job creation record as governor is quite poor (47th out of 50 states in job creation). So that leaves his performance at Bain Capital.

Why should we assume that being good in the private equity field translates into being an effective President? I certainly wouldn’t make that assumption. He lays claim to the jobs created by companies Bain Capital helped out, but neither Romney nor Bain Capital can legitimately claim that they created those jobs. Those companies themselves created those jobs. Bain Capital only downsized those companies to give them a chance to survive. Some survived and some didn’t. Any hiring done by the ones that survived should be credited to whoever founded and/or was running the companies, not Bain Capital. At best, Romney can only take credit for those coming to work at Bain Capital, in proportion to how much credit he deserves for the success of the company.

Furthermore, Bain Capital is a private company. Since Romney and the Republicans are constantly repeating the mantra that government doesn’t create jobs, whatever job creation Romney can take credit for does not translate into anything that can help him with the US economy by his and the Republican’s very definition of what government can and can’t do. The only thing Bain Capital is good for is to give Romney a platform to spin, which so far seems to be all he does.

Posted by flashrooster | Report as abusive

republicans are unbelievable. where was this rhetoric when W was blundering his way through 8 years of the worst presidency in history? his lack of ability in every facet of his position, including oratory skills, turned america into one of the most despised countries in the world and brought about the biggest recession we’ve endured in two generations. yet greedy pigs like jack welch want to promote romney and return to the same policies that put us in this mess to begin with. I remember bush’s presidency very well and clearly remember a more polarized nation during those years than anything we have now. remember millions of people marching in protest of the iraq war? I dont see anyone other than a handful of teaparty bigots demonstrating against the decisions of president obama. yet I’m supposed to believe any of the republican candidates we have right now will be a better choice for our country because corporate heads and investment bankers say so? i recognize that there may be someone more capable of handling the economy than obama. unfortunatly the only alternatives we have been given come with the baggage of bigotry, hatred, destruction of the environment for the sake of oil, a crumbling infastructure, almost total loss of investment in education, and an F you mentality to everyone outside our own social circles. if i have to make the choice between a slowly improving economy or the republican agenda, i take the slowly improving economy because i care about more than money. thanks for the article jack, itll come in handy later on the can.

Posted by LT01 | Report as abusive

Was it Obama’s “sort of divide and conquer strategy” that was so powerful that it retroactively led to the tea party formation shortly after the election? Was Obama’s strategy the reason why so many people in the republican party continue to refuse, despite all evidence, to simply accept that Barack Obama is an American citizen and not a kenyan-born socialist Muslim? Was this same strategy the one that led Obama to continue to pursue a “grand bargain” with the speaker, long after it should have been clear that the GOP’s only acceptable compromise was total surrender (ie huge spending cuts and zero additional revenue)? Or do these examples go into the “sort of” qualifier in Welch’s article, similar to the sentiment I am expressing when I say “Jack and Suzy Welch’s description of Obama’s first 3 years as President is ‘sort of’ accurate”, with ‘sort of’ meaning “the exact opposite”? This entire piece suggests that the Welch’s have not been paying any attention to politics these past three years; otherwise, they are just flat out lying.

Posted by NoVaCRE | Report as abusive

NoVaCRE: Thanks for your post. Republicans come out with these divisive, over-the-top nonsensical attacks every day. Obama has been trying to unite the country against impossible odds, thanks to the Republicans unwillingness to work with Obama and the Democrats. It hasn’t been until just recently that Obama finally started hitting back. Republicans left him no choice. Just today Republican Congressman Allen West was quoted as saying, “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party”. But I guess that’s not divisive because, after all, West is a Republican. Apparently that’s the way the Welches see it.

By any objective measure the Republicans are far more divisive than Democrats. Rush Limbaugh has been preaching to the right for years now that Democrats are the enemy, and many on the right have come to believe that. And unfortunately we don’t see much in the way of courage on the right, people standing up to those who make these kinds of divisive statements, statements that Rush Limbaugh makes on a daily basis, denouncing them and making sincere overtures toward greater national unity. After all, that would run contrary to the Republicans’ divide and conquer strategy, and there’s no “sort of” about it.

The true arbiter on this issue can be found by comparing the makeup of the Democratic Party to the makeup of the Republican Party. The Party that has the most diverse constituency is necessarily the Party that relies least on divisive tactics. At one time or another the Republicans have alienated women; African-Americans; gays; people of any faith besides Christians, and even some Christian denominations; the poor; Europeans; any country with any form of socialized healthcare (which is every developed nation besides the US); the United Nations; anyone belonging to a labor union, including teachers, police, and firefighters; the handicapped; college professors; intellectuals; artists; scientists; environmentalists; and frankly just about anyone who doesn’t support their ideologically driven rightwing agenda. Now, I’ll let anyone reading this decide which of the two Parties has the most diversity and which relies more on a divide and conquer strategy.

Posted by flashrooster | Report as abusive

Jack, Suzy, please just stay retired. Your day is past. Your ways are antiquity.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive

This is the whole reason that Mitt Romney is going to lose the election. Mitt Romney would be a great president for people like Jack and Suzy Welch.

Posted by theyorker1 | Report as abusive

I would not vote for Obama. However, I just wanted to say how tired I am of these childish, simplistic attempts to sway public opinion by applying derogatory, inflammatory language to the policies of someone you don’t agree with.

All that this convinces me of is that you don’t like him, but aren’t quite smart enough to frame cogent arguments, so you think that being deliberately inflammatory will cover up your lack of anything intelligent to say…

Posted by johnintj | Report as abusive

Good thoughts on leadership but the President still has to be a politician. Selling themselves and their ideas to the general public wins the election. Uniting people under their cause determines their overall success. The Presidency is a grand stage and communication is paramount.

Posted by moxsee | Report as abusive

You state “In politics, as in business, the leader’s job needs to be filled by a leader, and no effective leader, regardless of ideology, keeps an enemies list.”

And this advice is from a man who has one of the longest enemies lists on record.

I don’t think you are qualified to comment on what constitutes an effective leader, since you were never one yourself.

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive

Sometimes you have to sit back and look at the larger picture. Romney, a businessman, politician. Obama a gifted speaker, politician. Oops I forgot, silly me what business experience did Obama bring to the plate. He’s played with numbers, ie the jobless rate, taken credit for creating, according to Wasserman-Shultz millions of jobs which never existed. When people run out of jobless benefits Obama has claimed that he got them work. Yes, it’s true that they were not receiving aid anymore but now they are lumped into the forgotten Americans.
Obama opened up the vaults to big business but to be fair he wasn’t the first nor will he be the last. Bank of America as an example, received money to stay afloat then fired people, closed locations all the while grabbing properties under the guise of foreclosure. Now those loans were insured, the government gave them the full amount of the loans to help, the banks were actually only out the arrears not the total but collected the full amount as aid, they then threw the people out, took the money and lent and little or no interest to people who didnt need it in order to buy up these properties for a song. The bank declared large profits, based on branch closings , firings, cost savings, repayment of the loans by sales and excess coming from insurance , I forgot to add by loaning and playing with the taxpayers money for profit. Yet what happened to the Americans who were forced out of their homes by that Bank, oops they don’t count. If Obama would have just given the loans to cover the arrears for the Americans in foreclosure, the Bank would have shown good loans, the housing crisis would have not been as bad,the bank would have not closed as many branches , less people would be unemployed. Choices, made, by non business people, but by lobbyists who had their own agenda.
Obama got Bin Laden, that’s a joke. He was holed up in the same compound for a long time. His location wasn’t a secret. Ask paparrazzi how hard it is to hide out anywhere with a huge entourage. Obama knew that his ratings were plummeting so he used his ace in the hole card way too soon. When ratings dipped again he claimed huge employment gain, but that lie didn’t last long.
Health care for all. It would work if there weren’t different insurance making a fortune by fleecing the public. However they are not alone, we are a litiguous society and lawyers see Americans as a commodity to exploit. Cap those suits, costs would go down and everyone would have healthcare, but first all government employees would have to give up their access to plans with incredible benefits.
Middle East, this adminstration has pushed Israel to the brink of war all the while slamming that country with sanctions. Is that how you treat your friends.
America under this administration has become isolationist in its policies, right down to clamping the border with Canada. Homeland Security has been expanded, power corrupts and it seems to have done its job here.
Romney vs Obama who knows but America has to open itself up as it was. As the in the former USSR the people had less to fear of the government then Americans do now. Nixon resigned for a crime that by todays standards in Washington would have been a cocktail party joke.

Posted by bizdirector | Report as abusive

” And in this election, the ideological divide is stark indeed, with Obama supporting government centralization that borders on European-type socialism and Romney in favor of decentralization, state and individual rights and free-market capitalism.”
That characterization reeks of the same bold strokes of all the other spinmasters on the right. Tell the Lie until people begin to think it might be true.
Problem is, not only can R-money not talk a good game, that isn’t even his game. And Europeans piss on what you think is American socialism in the making.

Time to wake up and smell the rotting corpse that is the GOP.

Posted by ath.hole | Report as abusive

Anyone that fails to acknowledge the force of opposition is ineffectual as a strategist. Leadership is not the only function of the POTUS. Making effective decisions plays an exceedingly important part in the role. Not being able to evaluate ALL of the factors, including the negatives, is a major weakness in any contender. You should have known that – or have you deliberately chosen to ignore that part of a competitive landscape?

Posted by ath.hole | Report as abusive

The comment that all great presidents were great orators is simply wrong. Jefferson was such a poor orator that Merriweather Lewis delivered his speeches to congress. What about Truman, or Eisenhower and even Adams, Madison and other eighteenth century luminaries. Though his written words are remembered today, Lincoln’s delivery never measured up to his writings. Great leaders be they military, sports, or political are those who unite disparate people in a common cause, those whose actions match their verbage– not those that give rousing pre-game speeches. The most successful orator of the 20th century, lead the world to rack and ruin in the Second World War.

Posted by freedombuff | Report as abusive

This rather petulant article would seem beneath such an accomplished man, and woman. Politics is not “business” especially in the organization sense.

In your years at GE you may have had your detractors, the naysayers differing with your visions or direction, but you had a couple of rather strong remedies for those. Downline if someone disagreed too vehemently they were gone. On the BOD, as long as you held favor with the majority, wayward voices were just that, wayward voices, until they too could be replaced. Beyond all that you had a micro-commonality of interests and as long as your compatriots accepted you were doing a decent job you held onto the reins.

The POTUS, dealing with the entirety of the federal government, has no such remedies at his disposal. He can fire those in his administration but he can’t fire those in Congress who go on the airwaves to exclaim what a lousy job he is doing; he can’t remove Justices from the SCOTUS who overturn legislation he signed into law. His only serious remedy is the bully pulpit and that often entails motivating the American public and denigrating the opposition. Reality can be tough!

I agree with many here. The job of POTUS requires, above all, strong oratory skills. Leadership in government, given that the slightest faux pas can shake the world, places far more emphasis on what is said often more so than what is done. Your job as CEO was a cakewalk in comparison. Reagan appears a perfect example. Not an economics or business whiz, he wielded the spoken word like a magician.

Your personal political preferences notwithstanding, one likes to think that those who have reached a pinnacle can now step back and become objective assessors rather than political hacks.

Romney succeeded, to whatever extent, as Gov of MA, by agreeing to some actions that today would be anathema to the voting base he must now assuage. While clearly he did a good job with the Olympics, how successful would he have been without the federal government funding he received? To solve the current issues to whom does he go to for “pork”?

Can understand, especially from someone who was once on top of the heap, a strong desire to remain relevant but all of us have to realize, at some point, our day in the sun is over. Better to retire and “linger in the shade of a kind old tree”, playing the part of the wise old uncle who speaks to us of the silliness of the entire process. Reassuring us that there are no absolute answers but that everything will turn out ok.

Posted by ArtALayman | Report as abusive

This rather petulant article would seem beneath such an accomplished man, and woman. Politics is not “business” especially in the organization sense.

In your years at GE you may have had your detractors, the naysayers differing with your visions or direction, but you had a couple of rather strong remedies for those. Downline if someone disagreed too vehemently they were gone. On the BOD, as long as you held favor with the majority, wayward voices were just that, wayward voices, until they too could be replaced. Beyond all that you had a micro-commonality of interests and as long as your compatriots accepted you were doing a decent job you held onto the reins.

The POTUS, dealing with the entirety of the federal government, has no such remedies at his disposal. He can fire those in his administration but he can’t fire those in Congress who go on the airwaves to exclaim what a lousy job he is doing; he can’t remove Justices from the SCOTUS who overturn legislation he signed into law. His only serious remedy is the bully pulpit and that often entails motivating the American public and denigrating the opposition. Reality can be tough!

I agree with many here. The job of POTUS requires, above all, strong oratory skills. Leadership in government, given that the slightest faux pas can shake the world, places far more emphasis on what is said often more so than what is done. Your job as CEO was a cakewalk in comparison. Reagan appears a perfect example. Not an economics or business whiz, he wielded the spoken word like a magician.

Your personal political preferences notwithstanding, one likes to think that those who have reached a pinnacle can now step back and become objective assessors rather than political hacks.

Romney succeeded, to whatever extent, as Gov of MA, by agreeing to some actions that today would be anathema to the voting base he must now assuage. While clearly he did a good job with the Olympics, how successful would he have been without the federal government funding he received? To solve the current issues to whom does he go to for “pork”?

Can understand, especially from someone who was once on top of the heap, a strong desire to remain relevant but all of us have to realize, at some point, our day in the sun is over. Better to retire and “linger in the shade of a kind old tree”, playing the part of the wise old uncle who speaks to us of the silliness of the entire process. Reassuring us that there are no absolute answers but that everything will turn out ok.

Posted by ArtALayman | Report as abusive

Jack Welch can blast anyone he likes. The truth remains these guys supported Bush, who destroyed US economy in his 8 year rule.
So Jack Welch, unless he had denounced Bush and called him a economic and war criminal for the depression of 1008, has ZERO credibility.

So why waste time on the political views of men like Jack Welch, who saw virtue in the total thuggish and callous rule of Bush-Cheney ?

I will spare some time to read him , only if he passes that test.
These guys are cut out of the same cloth , out there to peddle for the top 0.1% , who have totally rigged the tax system of this country with 14% tax rate for Romney and brought the greatest disparity of wealth in this country in last 100 years.

I know on which side of the top 0.1% , Obama’s policies and I am.

Posted by bablooRaja | Report as abusive

Wow you liberals are nutty. Bush gave us 52 months of continued job growth. The longest ever. Obama has done the opposite. He has spent more than all other presidents combined and Obamacare hasn’t kicked in yet. Not a single argument liberals make can change the fact Obama is poor president, a horrible economist and a great socialist.

Posted by vtxtreme | Report as abusive

How many here believe that we need a Republican president and the Republicans to maintain the House and recapture the Senate? That Obama hates America and is destroying our country? Have you ACTUALLY read Paul Ryan’s Budget proposal “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013. Which is the official budget proposal of the Republican House and embraced by Mitt Romney. That document makes it absolutely clear who’s path to prosperity the Republican’s are talking about. And it isn’t the majority of American’s. If you make less than $1M a year and you vote Republican in 2012…you qualify as the village idiot. Because you are cutting your own throat. After reading Ryan’s budget, read the Simpson-Bowles budget proposal (commissioned by Obama and composed of members of both parties). A far superior, better written, extremely specific and a much fairer proposal.

Posted by xyz2055 | Report as abusive

Any Presidential candidate needs more than just good rhetoric. They need to rally people, show a passion around issues and most importantly paint a vision and strategy and show how you will execute. Same as CEOs of Fortune 100 companies. Loraine Antrim

Posted by LoraineAntrim | Report as abusive

“Obama has been trying to unite the country against impossible odds” *Flashrooster*

——————————————

I laughed so hard I’m crying. Obama plays the race card more than Al Sharpton and Flashrooster thinks he’s trying to unite the country.

Posted by mick68 | Report as abusive

Dear Jack and Suzy,

Rick Santorum was right and both of you are wrong. Mitt is THE WORST person in America to run as a candidate for the presidency.

Posted by Vidya3049 | Report as abusive

It has been obvious for some time that the general election has become American Idol on steroids. I hope that the American people can see past the veneer and vote on the substance of the candidates in question. Given his radical agenda and threat of more to come if given another four years I am surprised that more of the public hasn’t recognised the lurch we have taken to the left.

Posted by Montecalm | Report as abusive

Reasonableness would seem to indicate a strong belief in the forces of capitalism from the authors of this piece. Where the agents of commerce are the warriors for truth and justice and the American way.

I feel somewhat differently. I have come to believe that proper institutions of government are exactly what will save us from the clutches of rampant greed. Even the former head of the Federal Reserve indicated he was stymied by the force of greed in the financial markets.

This piece seems to suggest that a person of mitts talents would be good for this country. I am sure that he would be quite effective for the Welshes and possibly their friends. The other 300 million of us will, I am sure, take a back seat to the increasing wealth in this country. As we have for the last few decades.

Posted by kokobell616 | Report as abusive

Having just discovered Reuters as a source of my online news, I hunted around the website and the list of columnists. Jack and Suzy Welchs’ names were the only ones I recognized. They are known for their management tips and their magazine, Success, which I have read a few times. Considering who they are, and what they are about, I’d say what they’re doing here is looking at the President and his potential replacement for their management skills. It’s not really about what each side of the political spectrum stands for. The authors are applying their expertise to this area of politics.

I don’t disagree with kokobell that proper institutions of government would save us from the clutches of rampant greed. Proper ones. That is so very far from how our institutions are now. Talking about the money hungry from the point of view of the power hungry is mind-boggling.

Look at who Obama has experience managing, and who Romney has experience managing. That’s the point of the article.

Posted by LisaColorado | Report as abusive

It is true that Romney has had some “foot-in-mouth” moments, but what is not true is that it is because he isn’t used to being around so many “average Americans.” When Obama realized that Romney would most-likely be the nominee, he had his campaign send out a virtual SOS to everyone on their distro list saying that he didn’t believe that he could beat Romney in the general election. I have to agree with that assertion. When Obama and Romney go toe-to-toe in debates, it will become more and more clear that Romney is the man for this country’s CIC, and Romney is going to clean up in the election. Obama’s flowery rhetoric of “change” really can’t be touted this time, and that’s for two reasons. First, he has already proven that the only change he can bring is to make things worse, and second, people want it to change back to the way it used to be when it was actually good to live in the USA. Obama can’t do that. If anyone has any chance of changing things back to this country being a successful, thriving economy and society, it is Romney.

Posted by grapenephi | Report as abusive

I think you discredited yourself when you trotted out that tired old teleprompter attack. Oh but wait. It doesn’t matter since Obama was born in Kenya, right?

Posted by RobinInSanDiego | Report as abusive

The choice in 2012 is clear. Americans can vote to become Europe, helpless and dependent, Obama…or they can vote to remain uniquely individual, self-reliant and resilient, Romney. Although the libs have pecked away at our freedom in the name of taking care of us, we are not as stupid as they think. We’ll send Obama home and then begin to clean up his mess.

Posted by happydance | Report as abusive

You cry baby liberals just can’t let go of Bush can you. When you have accomplished the things that Jack Welch and George W. bush did then I might listen to your opinion. Until then you are just a bunch of frightened none achievers looking for a handout from the government.

Your false pride will keep you from admitting you voted for a Marxist in Obama. Then there are those disgusting vermin who are Marxists. Go somewhere else and start a country, this is America you aren’t welcome here. Maybe France will take your sorry lazy asses.

Posted by Airbones | Report as abusive