Last time, I voted for John McCain over Barack Obama. Sarah Palin was vilified in ways that strengthened my resolve. The many disagreeable acts and statements by those supporting Obama also factored in strongly.
I have greater hope for Romney on many issues because, unlike Obama, Romney does not believe he knows everything. In fact, I see in Romney what I believed we needed in 2008. A manager. Who gets advice and listens and acts on it.
Obama has no management skills. He is no manager.
Obama's meetings with his managers of our government are very few and quite far between. He has agencies out of control, so much so that they are frightening, especially their attitudes and positions on things like sex and men like those seen in the Department of Homeland Security.
Who is in charge here?
When called out on gun-running, another dangerous and abysmal situation, he has hidden behind executive privilege, claimed lack of knowledge and attempted to get the investigation stopped without proper examination of records or findings.
Who is in charge here?
We have little hope to avoid these confusing problems within a secret web of deception that can eventually snuff out every freedom. Who among us does not have some sympathy for Assange because of the need for openness among all governments so the public knows what is going on? Let's have a UN resolution that requires openness and see whether China, the United States or Russia is the first to veto it. Never happen. But that would be very good indeed.
I am convinced that these problems might be less severe with Republicans, whose concerns apparently include government encroachment on our civil rights.
Whether we will remain victimized by an overbearing government that can issue kill lists against American citizens is beside the point. The overall philosophy is what is most important.
Is protection from government, ending kill lists and indefinite imprisonment without charges, and a myriad of other actions likely under Obama? We already have our answer to that one for Obama.
Is "freedom" from taxes and environmental protection a risk under Romney? We do not really know what this will mean, but they are certainly risks.
What is certain is that business is now adverse to Obama. He has used up his welcome, and become a pariah to CEOs.
This is fast becoming a non-partisan factor in this election, pulling Democrats and independents toward Romney. Supporting business is clearly justified.
Because government and private enterprise, most especially the military-industrial complex, is one that needs careful watch and scrutiny to ensure the right things are done for everyone, including business.
Are we really anti-business as a nation? Do we really believe that business, which feeds us and keeps us moving forward, is secondary to a government run by the man who claims he is moving forward when he has done nothing but stood still?
I suspect not. And that alone could turn this election to Romney.
With allegedly 92% of the electorate employed and at most 20% of those employed working for or with government in the public or private sector, their employers necessarily win.
If anything, given the economic crisis, the ties with business and its interests are probably the strongest since the 1950s. This is why Wisconsin agreed to gut labor. And why labor is beginning to refuse to fall in line with an Obama whose support is shown by the politics of choosing largely non-union Charlotte over anywhere else in the United States.
Pro-business is not what it is cracked up to be by many liberals. It is not anti-citizen or anti-government. It favors a philosophy that is in danger of being shortchanged in this election.
In the waning days of this presidency, we will have much more vocal statements from business in order to turn the non-government related employed votes away from Obama.
As far as business, we have little from Obama other than Obamacare, special treatment of General Motors and other large financial and industrial companies, and an executive order allowing the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants and many others to stay in this country to show for his years in office.
These deal with jobs and investment in ways that most of the country sees little or no value.
I consider Obamacare better than nothing, but oppose the Dream Act by presidential fiat and am generally against government bailouts of any kind.
Really. What in the world are we doing here?
A change in direction seems needed, and so far there is nothing Obama provides that shows leadership, interest in the merits of any issue, or anything other than complacency and politics.
Giving out money is not why we hire a president . We hire presidents to lead.
And what leadership have we seen?
Obama is too busy running for the next term. And for his place in history, including studying the way historians will treat him and his "legacy."
My views of whether Barack Obama and Joe Biden are good guys also differ drastically from those of others. I think Romney and Ryan are better men.
There were and are too many things I have seen about Obama, from his choices for federal agencies to his actions during the 2008 primary season, that suggest he is not a nice guy. And the most recent racist dust-up by Biden is just par for the course. His statements are neither "just Biden" or unconsidered and unapproved.
From Obama giving his middle finger to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire or wherever that was to turning his back on Hillary Clinton in Congress, Obama reveals occasionally his other side. Not a nice guy. But a real nasty person.
I may have met Obama once or twice, but I knew his wife somewhat. Her actions in 2008 in Wisconsin sort of sums it up from my perspective.
In Wisconsin, I asked her if she was offended by Bill Clinton's use of the phrase 'fairytale' to describe her husband's characterisation of his position on the Iraq war. At first, Obama responded with a curt 'No'. But, after a few seconds, she affected a funny voice. 'I want to rip his eyes out!' she said, clawing at the air with her fingernails. One of her advisers gave her a nervous look. 'Kidding!' Obama said. 'See, this is what gets me into trouble.'
I have real trouble with that type of statement, left fallow as has been done with so many things from the last election cycle. Especially from the woman who is now our First Lady.
Let's say it is enough for Obama to have been the first bi-racial president of the United States and move on.
Is he a nice guy? I have my doubts.
Is he purely political? Unquestionably.
Do we need a pure political figure in the White House? No way.
That is my current position. It could change after the debates. But I doubt it.
We need a manager at this point. Not more Obama.