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.
Kabar, Cite in the constitution if you say you have the citation.
This particular conversation that you hijacked was not between me and you and it started as a defense of Romney as a good candidate for president as he is a manager.
Whatever else gets in there is on no interest to me.