I don’t have a problem with the word manage. Did you read my original response?
No.
OK I’ll resurrect it.
George Bush was a manager and managed to get us into a lot of trouble, started the economy on a spiral, it was he who did the bail out initiative, and he got us into the Iraq deal.
Just comparing him to the call for Romney, a good manager.
And the conversation took a dive from there, pointing our that George Bush wasn’t a good enough manager.
So then the question was repeated, how good a manager does one have to be?
And my view starts with the oft heard comment on Fox News (or should we call it H! campaign HQ News?) that Hillary is tough and really knows how to fight back.
THe real question then is, does anyone consult the constitution for the job description, because being tough or being a good manager, or on the Saudi payroll, or guaranteeing birth control for the masses is not there.
Hillary can be tough against decent people, against conservatives and against Trey Gowdy or we the people, so what does being tough have to do with anything.
There is no virtue in being tough nor for that matter in being a good manager or a successful community organizer. Any Mafia Don can claim all of that on a resume.
What matters is whether the guy can read the constitution and protect and defend it. Because that is the job description.
Everything follows from there.
I have no problem with the word manager. Why would I? George Bush was a good manager. So is Obama. He manages his vacation schedule and his lies and the media into two terms.
Problem is his management is not going into the priority it should b going into.
Any guarantee, or even record that Romney wouldn’t be managing his own extraconstitutional priorities.
Check his latest stance on abortion, Obamacare, anything else.
I will guarantee you cannot quote him saying the word Constititution in the past three years since after the election.
I read your original response. I disagreed with it. Then, you went off on the tangent about the Constitution and where does it say that the President should be a manager. I gave you the reference,
We need competence in the WH. We really haven't had it since Reagan. We are bankrupt. We have over a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. We has structural unemployment affecting our young people. Our aging population is placing increasing stress on our social safety net. Our country is declining as a global power. Our entitlement programs are consuming two-thirds of our budget.
Bush was a lousy manager not much better than Obama. Neither one of them was competent as an executive.
Any guarantee, or even record that Romney wouldn’t be managing his own extraconstitutional priorities.
Another strawman. I am not supporting Romney for the WH in 2016. However, there is no question in my mind that he is a superior executive who could have addressed many of the fundamental problems with our inefficient, ineffective government. Still, he would be very limited in what he could do unless he could convince Congress to make some very hard decisions. Bush had a Rep Congress and made matters worse.
In any event, we can only go around this tree so many times. I want a real executive in the WH to address some very serious, fundamental problems that threaten our very survival as a nation. We need to have priorities. Over and out.