Meanwhile, today I just watched a TV debate by two (non-US) experts. And they seemed to agree that Romney would be an very good president...
Poof! My brain just blew... I don't know what to think at all
I think TV experts and pundits, at this stage in an ongoing lengthy event, want to show that they can come up with fresh angles and how they are not in anybody's hock, financially or mentally. So they try, some of them, to defend a position that will make people jump a bit. Often by disregarding some of the equations, some of the real forces in upcoming situations. or they just make a thinly veiled appeal to faith in the future wisdom of whatever way America will vote (yeah, I saw a well-known political editor here pull that line in an article on Bush and Gore in the autumn of 2000!), but it's less than easy to buy into that these days when elections and campaigns look the way they do.
The man has shown little skill for diplomacy, which has been shown in both his domestic and foreign appearances (the man scheduled a fund-raising dinner in Israel on a fasting holy day, and insulted the UK about how they were handling the Olympics!) In the current world climate, diplomacy is a very important skill to have. Regardless of how I feel about his stance on the issues, I really don't see him as presidential material. Running a country is not the same thing as running a business.
Agree, his businessman style really isn't what the U.S. and the world needs in the early 21st century. Diplomatic actions, treaties and negotiations are not always glamorous but it can be a lot more productive than war.
I also think the guy looks doctrinaire in his ideas about restoring a very-small-government, self-made men America where you swim or sink - and I haven't seen him discussing the financial and jobs crisis at all, in any other terms than cutting taxes to stimulate a lot of new companies and industries starting up and letting them run the show. He never addresses the economic and human misery wrought by tye crisis, or the underlying causes. That is unsettling, because it makes me think he would pudh the U.S. further back into a small-scale, less educated and less responsible society.
And agree with Trieste that the guy appears dishonest and without solid, thought-through convictions and methods for how to solve problems in the U.S. and abroad. He has not been accountable as a businessman and he doesn't seem to have it in him to allow for others to discuss him and his plans openly, and listen, himself, to their reasons and concepts. Not at the White House and not in public. He just isn't that kind of person: he is not presidential
. For a comparison I didn't feel Tony Blair was "presidential" in that sense either, and British prime ministers have much of the standing and room to move of a U.S. president. Blair had real, inner convictions and he was a great speaker, but there was something increasingly dishonest and fluid about him.