Scenario in a Presidential Election Debate, Romney to Obama:
"Mr. Obama, please allow me to finish this and then I request the courtesy of a reply.
Mr. Obama, do you understand that if a consulting firm is going in to save firms that layoffs may be required to save the company - and that that is what will save thousands of jobs that would have been lost otherwise if the company had gone out of business?
If you do, then will you stand still for the lie that I was a destroyer of jobs, when actually there were many jobs saved?
In the name of ethics and decency, are you willing to call off the dogs and to speak out publicly to tell your supporters to cease and desist in this lie?"
Make sense?
Yours for standing for ethics and decency,
The Rational NonPolitician
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Conduct a campaign consistent with American greatness
“My campaign will be a campaign of American greatness.”
[I recognize that we can campaign on division and attack, but, the speaker of the above continues, saying what follows.]
“I believe instead we need to draw together, that we need campaigns and leaders who will draw on the greatness of the American spirit, as opposed to people who will divide us, and look for scapegoats, and demonize fellow Americans, or find a street that’s responsible for our problems.”
Now, that's what I call an adult message. I believe Romney when he said it, as I saw him immediately pull a negative ad re: Perry that his campaign people put out.
So, Mr. Obama, are you willing to make a pledge to do the same and to pull all lies and false negatives immediately and to discourage them? Or will you do what is politically expedient?
The Rational NonPolitician
P. S. Mr. Obama, I think you would be reelected for sure if you stepped up to acting as an adult, letting go of the divisive speech and half truths (where the essential other side is omitted). And then you could be a President that I could have some rational confidence in...
[I recognize that we can campaign on division and attack, but, the speaker of the above continues, saying what follows.]
“I believe instead we need to draw together, that we need campaigns and leaders who will draw on the greatness of the American spirit, as opposed to people who will divide us, and look for scapegoats, and demonize fellow Americans, or find a street that’s responsible for our problems.”
Now, that's what I call an adult message. I believe Romney when he said it, as I saw him immediately pull a negative ad re: Perry that his campaign people put out.
So, Mr. Obama, are you willing to make a pledge to do the same and to pull all lies and false negatives immediately and to discourage them? Or will you do what is politically expedient?
The Rational NonPolitician
P. S. Mr. Obama, I think you would be reelected for sure if you stepped up to acting as an adult, letting go of the divisive speech and half truths (where the essential other side is omitted). And then you could be a President that I could have some rational confidence in...
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Being Presidential with no negative engagements
Being Presidential requires that one is the "adult in the room", operating without blame, rancor, twisting the facts or omitting relevant details. (Obama has totally failed that test.)
A President must not get engaged in a rancorous exchange. The Presidential person would not even look at the person who is accusing him of something, but should calmly assert what is true, referring to what "Mr. _____" says is not true and then giving the facts. He must not engage or be engaged in any rancorous conversation, nor should he get heated up. He can stand strongly for the truth and for what he believes and contrast himself with the other candidate. He must always raise the level back to leading to a constructive end point.
A President must be civil and direct and always progressive and principled.
And a President (a future one) must set an absolute standard - and not be pulled down into the morass.
The Rational NonPolitician
P.S. The tackiest bit of the Republican debates was when Rick Perry twisted the facts plus continuing on an issue that was already fully answered. He accused Romney of hiring illegals and being a hypocrite when he had asked his the company that does his gardening maintenance to remove an illegal (when it was discovered by a Boston paper) and thought the problem was solved. When he found out later that there was an illegal working for that company a year later, he fired the company. What else could he do?
Based on that conversation, I would exclude Mr. Perry for consideration as a President.
A President must not get engaged in a rancorous exchange. The Presidential person would not even look at the person who is accusing him of something, but should calmly assert what is true, referring to what "Mr. _____" says is not true and then giving the facts. He must not engage or be engaged in any rancorous conversation, nor should he get heated up. He can stand strongly for the truth and for what he believes and contrast himself with the other candidate. He must always raise the level back to leading to a constructive end point.
A President must be civil and direct and always progressive and principled.
And a President (a future one) must set an absolute standard - and not be pulled down into the morass.
The Rational NonPolitician
P.S. The tackiest bit of the Republican debates was when Rick Perry twisted the facts plus continuing on an issue that was already fully answered. He accused Romney of hiring illegals and being a hypocrite when he had asked his the company that does his gardening maintenance to remove an illegal (when it was discovered by a Boston paper) and thought the problem was solved. When he found out later that there was an illegal working for that company a year later, he fired the company. What else could he do?
Based on that conversation, I would exclude Mr. Perry for consideration as a President.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Mr. Mitt Romney, I See Your "Why"
I have studied the candidates and then looked more deeply into them.
And, I think, people do not get the powerful "why" for Mitt Romney.
WHY does he want to be President?
In a simple statement it is, I think, "to use the abilities I have acquired so that I can direct this nation back to prosperity and strength for all Americans." And a subtext is, I believe, "my heart is broken when I see the suffering and struggles that now exist in this country...and I want to do as much about it as I can."
For some reason, his "why" doesn't show up clearly. He needs to (as we all do) consider the message in this TED talk (18 minutes) of Simon Sinek "How great leaders inspire action".
I am hoping that Mr. Romney will get the "why" to be known, so that he can be the one to lead this nation.
We have learned, I think, that great rhetoric and wonderful motives are insufficient for the most important job in the world - and that it cannot be left to someone who does not have the capabilities, no matter how nice and good the person is.
You, Mr. Romney, are the only one who is immensely qualified to recreate a strong foundation and prosperity for America.
So, please do what it takes to win the primary, and then go on to be President. We cannot afford not to have you as President. And you need to make your "why" clear to all of us, so we can match it with your great abilities and elect you to restore the strength of this nation.
This is my rational opinion. If you have a contribution to make in this regard, please do so.
Yours for rational decisions and prosperity,
The Rational NonPolitician
P. S. After my investigation, I have written several pieces. You can find them via the Evaluation Of Romney page.
And, I think, people do not get the powerful "why" for Mitt Romney.
WHY does he want to be President?
In a simple statement it is, I think, "to use the abilities I have acquired so that I can direct this nation back to prosperity and strength for all Americans." And a subtext is, I believe, "my heart is broken when I see the suffering and struggles that now exist in this country...and I want to do as much about it as I can."
For some reason, his "why" doesn't show up clearly. He needs to (as we all do) consider the message in this TED talk (18 minutes) of Simon Sinek "How great leaders inspire action".
I am hoping that Mr. Romney will get the "why" to be known, so that he can be the one to lead this nation.
We have learned, I think, that great rhetoric and wonderful motives are insufficient for the most important job in the world - and that it cannot be left to someone who does not have the capabilities, no matter how nice and good the person is.
You, Mr. Romney, are the only one who is immensely qualified to recreate a strong foundation and prosperity for America.
So, please do what it takes to win the primary, and then go on to be President. We cannot afford not to have you as President. And you need to make your "why" clear to all of us, so we can match it with your great abilities and elect you to restore the strength of this nation.
This is my rational opinion. If you have a contribution to make in this regard, please do so.
Yours for rational decisions and prosperity,
The Rational NonPolitician
P. S. After my investigation, I have written several pieces. You can find them via the Evaluation Of Romney page.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Cain For President - Republicans, do not repeat the errors of the past.
In the 2008 primaries, Republicans "voted with their hearts" (which they do have, despite the assertions of the Dems), instead of their minds. They voted for what seemed to correspond with their beliefs, but not for what would create the best results.
Even then the standout, though not yet as well seasoned politically, debatewise, and image-creating-wise, for who could do the right job was Mitt Romney.
McCain, while being a good man with lots of legislative experience, was not the man for the job.
This is not the first case of "good man, wrong job", surely. The effect of that was fully illustrated with our experience with Barack Obama's Presidency. (See Evaluation of Obama's Presidency.)
The evangelists voted, at least at first, for somebody embracing something closer to their beliefs. This time they need to vote for what will create the best results for all concerned, as the nation will not, in a practical sense, ever, ever, ever go over to voting for any of the more extreme positions - though, of course, they are backed up with good values and beliefs, but ones that differ too strongly from others. While we must respect their beliefs, we also must balance that with respect for the beliefs of the other citizens, without imposing one set of beliefs on others - and that is one of the key elements of our fiber as a nation, so we cannot and will not violate that.
This is a "right of center" nation. And that is where the ultimate laws will inevitably go. Yes, they will sometimes go to some way-off-center laws when one political party dominates for a while, before they are thrown out of office in order to adjust the laws back toward the middle.
McCain, though I respect age, was too old to be able to be sure he could live long enough and, fatally, I think, too inexperienced in management. Feisty and a good debater, yes. And willing to fight the establishment (a maverick) to some extent. But not the right man for the job. And then he selected a good person who was a much more colorful maverick and which he thought would ignite the party and the woman's vote - he was partly right but disastrously wrong as it was soon apparent that she could not have a prayer of being a capable President if McCain died.
Good people, wrong job. And it is a fatal mistake to hire someone for the wrong reasons!
Now Herman Cain is achieving high results in the polls. As I look at that, I wonder what is happening and feel the urge to say "Are you kidding me?" or "What are you smoking?"
He is a good, proper, proven executive, but he'll have a big learning curve as to how to operate in government. And we've seen what happened with the harmful effects of the current President, though a good and intelligent man, being unqualified and having go through a huge learning curve, which is actually virtually impossible to do even in four years.
You need to hire the right man for the right job. I have no affiliation with Romney nor any prejudice for him, but I have investigated deeply enough to come to the rationally, factually-based conclusion that he is the best man, by far (similar to what Christie said in his endorsement). (See Evaluation Of Romney.)
Vote this time for the best man for the most important job in the world. Please sit down and reason with the facts in order to make the best decision. Please hire the most qualified man, not just the candidates who you find appealing or which agree most with your beliefs!.
Yours for the greater good of this nation,
The Rational NonPolitician
Even then the standout, though not yet as well seasoned politically, debatewise, and image-creating-wise, for who could do the right job was Mitt Romney.
McCain, while being a good man with lots of legislative experience, was not the man for the job.
This is not the first case of "good man, wrong job", surely. The effect of that was fully illustrated with our experience with Barack Obama's Presidency. (See Evaluation of Obama's Presidency.)
The evangelists voted, at least at first, for somebody embracing something closer to their beliefs. This time they need to vote for what will create the best results for all concerned, as the nation will not, in a practical sense, ever, ever, ever go over to voting for any of the more extreme positions - though, of course, they are backed up with good values and beliefs, but ones that differ too strongly from others. While we must respect their beliefs, we also must balance that with respect for the beliefs of the other citizens, without imposing one set of beliefs on others - and that is one of the key elements of our fiber as a nation, so we cannot and will not violate that.
This is a "right of center" nation. And that is where the ultimate laws will inevitably go. Yes, they will sometimes go to some way-off-center laws when one political party dominates for a while, before they are thrown out of office in order to adjust the laws back toward the middle.
McCain, though I respect age, was too old to be able to be sure he could live long enough and, fatally, I think, too inexperienced in management. Feisty and a good debater, yes. And willing to fight the establishment (a maverick) to some extent. But not the right man for the job. And then he selected a good person who was a much more colorful maverick and which he thought would ignite the party and the woman's vote - he was partly right but disastrously wrong as it was soon apparent that she could not have a prayer of being a capable President if McCain died.
Good people, wrong job. And it is a fatal mistake to hire someone for the wrong reasons!
Now Herman Cain is achieving high results in the polls. As I look at that, I wonder what is happening and feel the urge to say "Are you kidding me?" or "What are you smoking?"
He is a good, proper, proven executive, but he'll have a big learning curve as to how to operate in government. And we've seen what happened with the harmful effects of the current President, though a good and intelligent man, being unqualified and having go through a huge learning curve, which is actually virtually impossible to do even in four years.
You need to hire the right man for the right job. I have no affiliation with Romney nor any prejudice for him, but I have investigated deeply enough to come to the rationally, factually-based conclusion that he is the best man, by far (similar to what Christie said in his endorsement). (See Evaluation Of Romney.)
Vote this time for the best man for the most important job in the world. Please sit down and reason with the facts in order to make the best decision. Please hire the most qualified man, not just the candidates who you find appealing or which agree most with your beliefs!.
Yours for the greater good of this nation,
The Rational NonPolitician
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Hiring A CEO For The Nation - Producing Prosperity
The job before us as citizens is to hire a CEO For The Nation, for producing prosperity, abundance, and a nation that serves us all.
Of course, the CEO is not just focused on economics, but is focused more broadly on assuring that the citizens are better off overall: more capable and happier, with rights and liberties fully installed.
As I look and go deeper on all the candidates, the standout is Mitt Romney, as a proven and effective CEO, with excellent values and consideration for all.
This might look like a political position, but I assure you that it is my best attempt at looking at what is best for the nation. See Evaluation Of Romney, Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, and Obama Vs Romney On The Issues, and Ratings Of The 2012 Candidates.
Hiring such a CEO is critical for the nation, as we can no longer insert "enemies, blaming, class warfare, fighting" and such into our thinking, as it displace problem solving and progress. We need a CEOPresident who knows how to create results and cares for all the people.
Now is the time.
The Rational Non-Politician
(Yes, I can be wrong/incorrect on some issues/facts, etc., so please provide factual and reasoning inputs. I have no doubt, because of the very wide advantage of Romney over the others that he is the best choice, by far, for the nation!).
Of course, the CEO is not just focused on economics, but is focused more broadly on assuring that the citizens are better off overall: more capable and happier, with rights and liberties fully installed.
As I look and go deeper on all the candidates, the standout is Mitt Romney, as a proven and effective CEO, with excellent values and consideration for all.
This might look like a political position, but I assure you that it is my best attempt at looking at what is best for the nation. See Evaluation Of Romney, Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, and Obama Vs Romney On The Issues, and Ratings Of The 2012 Candidates.
Hiring such a CEO is critical for the nation, as we can no longer insert "enemies, blaming, class warfare, fighting" and such into our thinking, as it displace problem solving and progress. We need a CEOPresident who knows how to create results and cares for all the people.
Now is the time.
The Rational Non-Politician
(Yes, I can be wrong/incorrect on some issues/facts, etc., so please provide factual and reasoning inputs. I have no doubt, because of the very wide advantage of Romney over the others that he is the best choice, by far, for the nation!).
Religious Righteousness Against Mormonism
Robert Jeffries, who introduced Perry at a recent speech, assert that Mormonism is a cult and that they are not Christians. (Perry has refuted this, to his credit.)
This is an example of righteousness and what seems to be very unchristian behavior. Would Christ do this?
This man, in this instance, is being irrational and righteous - a combination which has created a great deal of harm in this world. He needs to learn how to reason and be fair, or he'll be leading people into more irrationality and what causes the problems in the world.
Of course, the name of the Mormon church, also called the LDS church, is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of The Latter Day Saints. It would appear that Jeffries should check things out in more depth before making assertions.
Throughout history, churches have fought against other churches and religions. They do this all in the belief that they are right and the others wrong. However, the others believe they are right also. So, we have 10,000 variations of religion most of whom believe they are the right one - but, at the very best, there would logically be 9,999 of them that were not right in some way.
It is preposterous to believe that one 'knows the truth' based on explaining what is unexplainable and 'knowing' the truth of the unprovable and often unknowable.
A religion with mature perspective allows for and tolerates other religions. Muhammad urged tolerance. See Jesus quote below. All wise religions support "love". Jeffries is doing a perfect example here of hatefulness and righteousness, which is the opposite of good religion.
With regard to Jeffries and his learning more, Jesus statement might be used here: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." So, the solution, as always, is to educate those like Jeffries so that they can do what works better for the world and stop their harm.
Until we rid the world of such thinking as Jeffries engages in, the world will not be as good as it can be. He is not to blame for he is simply doing the best he can, given the current limits of his awareness. He is not the problem. It is his lack of awareness/knowledge. So the solution is to solve the lack of awareness.
What do you think?
The Rational Non-Politician
(aka The Rational Problem Solver)
A cult? Well, certainly not as large as the cult of Jeffries. It seems, from my knowledge and review of their principles and 'books' that they are a community that is progressive and of very high character and values.
See the brief comments on Mormonism - Not A Factor under Evaluation Of Romney.
This is an example of righteousness and what seems to be very unchristian behavior. Would Christ do this?
This man, in this instance, is being irrational and righteous - a combination which has created a great deal of harm in this world. He needs to learn how to reason and be fair, or he'll be leading people into more irrationality and what causes the problems in the world.
Of course, the name of the Mormon church, also called the LDS church, is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of The Latter Day Saints. It would appear that Jeffries should check things out in more depth before making assertions.
Throughout history, churches have fought against other churches and religions. They do this all in the belief that they are right and the others wrong. However, the others believe they are right also. So, we have 10,000 variations of religion most of whom believe they are the right one - but, at the very best, there would logically be 9,999 of them that were not right in some way.
It is preposterous to believe that one 'knows the truth' based on explaining what is unexplainable and 'knowing' the truth of the unprovable and often unknowable.
A religion with mature perspective allows for and tolerates other religions. Muhammad urged tolerance. See Jesus quote below. All wise religions support "love". Jeffries is doing a perfect example here of hatefulness and righteousness, which is the opposite of good religion.
With regard to Jeffries and his learning more, Jesus statement might be used here: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." So, the solution, as always, is to educate those like Jeffries so that they can do what works better for the world and stop their harm.
Until we rid the world of such thinking as Jeffries engages in, the world will not be as good as it can be. He is not to blame for he is simply doing the best he can, given the current limits of his awareness. He is not the problem. It is his lack of awareness/knowledge. So the solution is to solve the lack of awareness.
What do you think?
The Rational Non-Politician
(aka The Rational Problem Solver)
A cult? Well, certainly not as large as the cult of Jeffries. It seems, from my knowledge and review of their principles and 'books' that they are a community that is progressive and of very high character and values.
See the brief comments on Mormonism - Not A Factor under Evaluation Of Romney.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Rationally Evaluating Romney - Extraordinary
I decided to look deeper and to determine who would be the best for the United States. I was very impressed about how extraordinarily capable and caring he is.
If one puts aside biases for a moment and conflicts of beliefs, one will find that all citizens, on the left or the right, will be better off if Mitt Romney becomes the President.
I would predict that he will be the best President ever, in terms of effectiveness in improving our economy and the benefits we derive from it.
From The Site, Evaluation Of Romney:
Among all the candidates for President for 2012, there is no competitor (with the exception of Huntsman) who even comes close as to the qualifications and ability to manage the United States government for the betterment of all, regardless of one's party affiliation.
If one reviews his background, in areas that are controllable, he has had extraordinary results, including these:
1. Taking all of the employees of the firm to locate a partner's missing young daughter (see video Mitt Romney Hero),
2. Turning a $3 billion dollar deficit for Massachusetts into a $1 billion dollar surplus (see video on his governorship An Introduction).
3. Rescuing the 2002 Olympics from disaster and fraud and making it highly successful and profitable (see documentary video Olympics Turnaround).
4. Turned around a major management consultant firm and consulted with many businesses to improve their operations.
5. Ran a business investment firm, buying and/or financing and then consulting or managing, with an extraordinary set of results, averaging an astounding return on investment of 113 per cent. See documentary video The Businessman.
He is fair and highly conscientious about protecting those who are in need (proven by his actual actions) and he is avid about creating opportunity and educating people so that they will prosper.
He has prepared a thorough plan (while Obama has never produced a thorough written plan) for jobs and economic factors: See The Plan or The PDF Summary (at Mitt Romney, Jobs).
Extraordinarily effective and caring to do what is right - this is a potent combination that could benefit this nation more than ever before. With him in charge, I am certain that our culture and our country will prosper.
Look at the evaluation and decide. This is an important time. (You might want to review the Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, 10/11.)
The Rational Problem Solver
As always, I welcome corrections, additions, analyses and any comments.
If one puts aside biases for a moment and conflicts of beliefs, one will find that all citizens, on the left or the right, will be better off if Mitt Romney becomes the President.
I would predict that he will be the best President ever, in terms of effectiveness in improving our economy and the benefits we derive from it.
From The Site, Evaluation Of Romney:
Among all the candidates for President for 2012, there is no competitor (with the exception of Huntsman) who even comes close as to the qualifications and ability to manage the United States government for the betterment of all, regardless of one's party affiliation.
If one reviews his background, in areas that are controllable, he has had extraordinary results, including these:
1. Taking all of the employees of the firm to locate a partner's missing young daughter (see video Mitt Romney Hero),
2. Turning a $3 billion dollar deficit for Massachusetts into a $1 billion dollar surplus (see video on his governorship An Introduction).
3. Rescuing the 2002 Olympics from disaster and fraud and making it highly successful and profitable (see documentary video Olympics Turnaround).
4. Turned around a major management consultant firm and consulted with many businesses to improve their operations.
5. Ran a business investment firm, buying and/or financing and then consulting or managing, with an extraordinary set of results, averaging an astounding return on investment of 113 per cent. See documentary video The Businessman.
He is fair and highly conscientious about protecting those who are in need (proven by his actual actions) and he is avid about creating opportunity and educating people so that they will prosper.
He has prepared a thorough plan (while Obama has never produced a thorough written plan) for jobs and economic factors: See The Plan or The PDF Summary (at Mitt Romney, Jobs).
Extraordinarily effective and caring to do what is right - this is a potent combination that could benefit this nation more than ever before. With him in charge, I am certain that our culture and our country will prosper.
Look at the evaluation and decide. This is an important time. (You might want to review the Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, 10/11.)
The Rational Problem Solver
As always, I welcome corrections, additions, analyses and any comments.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
THE INTANGIBLES OF A CANDIDATE
As Tony Robbins chided Al Gore in the audience at TED, he would have been elected if he had more emotion behind his ideas and being. See Video.
On Monday night at the CNNTeaParty sponsored Republican Presidential Debates, we were treated to a unique camera view of the candidates walking onto the stage.
Rick Perry walked in powerfully, appearing well-grounded and very strong, appearing to be a person who would stand strongly and not fold easily.
Mitt Romney walked in almost tippy-toed, as if he had ballet slippers on his feet, as if he was a good little boy, the All-American kid. (He does have hugely high character, but he looks as if he is a people pleaser...)
Jon Huntsman walked in with softness and grace, disturbing nothing in his path, making no noise, almost appearing to be a "wimp" (which people do not vote for!).
Perhaps Tony should coach the latter two - or even I could, but not as well, of course. Do they not have people on their team who can coach in that way?
Mitt Romney has a "charisma deficit", so people are not very excited about him, despite the fact that he is one of the most qualified candidates in the last 50 years.
Jon Huntsman is a sophisticated, kind-appearing, thoughtful appearing gentlemen who is of the highest character (as was his extraordinarily high-character father). Although he has the best record of the governors, with a huge approval rating even when he left office, he is not noticed. He must boldly proclaim, while still maintaining his excellent respectful behavior.
Both have put forth plans that are excellent, but they can't rely on people reading the plans and/or giving them much thought. Few people nowadays do that very well. They must emphasize the points and give illustrations, probably in a video format, educating but trying not to be as dry as Ross Perot (a great example of a businessman candidate, but without the other side that is necessary in terms of politics and charisma). Huntsman Plan (good overview in it, should be featured more strongly on his site). Romney Plan (this goes to free Amazon download; his website flashes between other items, so the plan is not always shown...)
Romney and Huntsman, the most workable experienced qualified candidates, must adjust their style or they will go by the wayside, sadly. And, if by chance one of them wins the nomination, the charm and boldness of Barack Obama may win over the non-thinking voters in the middle. This leaves the voters leaning toward Rick Perry if they want a strong contender against Obama in terms of impression.
What do you think?
The Rational Non-Politician
On Monday night at the CNNTeaParty sponsored Republican Presidential Debates, we were treated to a unique camera view of the candidates walking onto the stage.
Rick Perry walked in powerfully, appearing well-grounded and very strong, appearing to be a person who would stand strongly and not fold easily.
Mitt Romney walked in almost tippy-toed, as if he had ballet slippers on his feet, as if he was a good little boy, the All-American kid. (He does have hugely high character, but he looks as if he is a people pleaser...)
Jon Huntsman walked in with softness and grace, disturbing nothing in his path, making no noise, almost appearing to be a "wimp" (which people do not vote for!).
Perhaps Tony should coach the latter two - or even I could, but not as well, of course. Do they not have people on their team who can coach in that way?
Mitt Romney has a "charisma deficit", so people are not very excited about him, despite the fact that he is one of the most qualified candidates in the last 50 years.
Jon Huntsman is a sophisticated, kind-appearing, thoughtful appearing gentlemen who is of the highest character (as was his extraordinarily high-character father). Although he has the best record of the governors, with a huge approval rating even when he left office, he is not noticed. He must boldly proclaim, while still maintaining his excellent respectful behavior.
Both have put forth plans that are excellent, but they can't rely on people reading the plans and/or giving them much thought. Few people nowadays do that very well. They must emphasize the points and give illustrations, probably in a video format, educating but trying not to be as dry as Ross Perot (a great example of a businessman candidate, but without the other side that is necessary in terms of politics and charisma). Huntsman Plan (good overview in it, should be featured more strongly on his site). Romney Plan (this goes to free Amazon download; his website flashes between other items, so the plan is not always shown...)
Romney and Huntsman, the most workable experienced qualified candidates, must adjust their style or they will go by the wayside, sadly. And, if by chance one of them wins the nomination, the charm and boldness of Barack Obama may win over the non-thinking voters in the middle. This leaves the voters leaning toward Rick Perry if they want a strong contender against Obama in terms of impression.
What do you think?
The Rational Non-Politician
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)