ScaupHunter wrote:For starters he would have run the nation with a full understanding of leadership, responsibilities, and the demands of a successful leader. He ran multimillion dollar companies and was a Governor. Like him or not he was and is emminently more qualified to be president that Obama. He had alread enacted and pushed through socialized medicine in his own state. He would and could have handled Romney Care far better than the Obamabots have. Etc...... There is not one single thing Obama could have or has done that would not have been done better by someone else. Romney or otherwise.
Democrats don't want to admit that Bill Clinton was a vastly superior President than Barack Obama. Bill was well qualified for the day-to-day job of the President. Now if he would have succeeded in getting Hillarycare while the Democrats controlled Congress during the first quarter of his presidency, his presidency would have been much more like Obama's and definitely would have been if the Democrats had not been shut out in the Congress for the last three quarters of his presidency. However, he was fortunate and got the most conservative, legitimately conservative Congress in many generations, so he was forced to accept the "end of welfare as we know it" and to declare "the era of big government is over" without being laughed off the stage as Obama would be if he made such a declaration. Obama on the other hand had the most socialist leaning Congress possibly ever for the first quarter of his term and for the middle half a Republican House in the midst of a civil war between legitimate conservatism/libertarianism and big government/machine politics and a Democrat Senate controlled by a strongly socialist leaning/machine politics which has caused him to flounder since he has got too much of what he wanted unlike Clinton that was forced to accept much that he did not.
Bill Clinton was a Democrat from a Red State while Obama is a Democrat from a state where Democrats need not work with Republicans, so he never learned that skill. Romney was a Republican from a Democrat state and the mirror opposite of Clinton, which certainly is a positive in terms of day-to-day interactions with the opposition party.
As good as Bill was on the day-to-day and as lucky as he was in his failure to get bad policy, Hillary lacks all of those skills. Did Hillary choose to run for office in a Red state like Bill or did she flee to a solid Blue state where she could preach to the choir? Why? Was she appointed Secretary of State because of her past experience or because she was the runner up in the Democrat primary and Obama wanted her under his thumb to eliminate any intra-party struggles from the primary power base in the party? What can she point to other than frequent flier miles? The Russian reset? What? Nada! She is not Bill in anyway.
People focus solely on policy and reject the skills needed to manage the day-to-day of the job. It is something very few people have the skill set. It is something that even the most qualified must augment with a good VP, Chief of Staff, and other key positions. Obama chose a man for VP that did not fill in his glaring gaps. Bush picked Cheney who did just that. Romney picked Ryan who did a lot of that for him. Bill picking Al did a lot of that by picking a career Washington insider. Obama didn't even know how unqualified he was. Romney clearly had a much better grasp of that, he had demonstrated experience as a chief executive in both public and government, he had demonstrated experience working with Democrats, I can't think of one area where Romney does not look vastly superior on the day-to-day job of being President.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.