Romney or Obama? It's a No-brainer

Neil Snyder
Warren Buffett, founder of Berkshire Hathaway, has made billions of dollars for himself and his investors by betting on the movement of stocks, bonds, commodities, and other investments. He is a guru in the financial services industry.

Before he died, Steve Jobs was the brains behind Apple. Many years ago, he recognized a developing opportunity in the delivery to consumers of digital music and other digitized products.That led to iTunes, the iPod, and other Apple products. 

While Napster was going head-to-head with the Justice Department, Jobs was busily preparing his company to lead the way to the digital future -- legally. In the process, he made a fortune for himself and for those who were wise enough to buy Apple stock. But for every Buffett and Jobs, there are countless wannabes and pretenders in business. 

The same is true in politics. Many people want to be president, but only a few of them have the creativity, determination, and panache to do the job well. Just like Buffett and Jobs, candidates for the highest office in the land have records of accomplishment that can be evaluated by voters if they are open-minded and are willing to do their homework. Even candidates with no accomplishments and a penchant for trying to hide their past - people like Barack Obama in 2008 - have records because accomplishing nothing is a record that's impossible to conceal.  It's a bad one, but it's a record nonetheless.

The president was given a pass in 2008 because of his race, but things have changed markedly since then. After almost four years in office, Obama finally has an inescapable record from which he cannot hide, and more and more each day voters are willing to hold him accountable. Obama's record isn't good.  His performance on both domestic and foreign policy issues has been dismal.  According to Yuval Levin of National Review Online, following Obama's first debate with Romney, even his surrogates on the campaign trail and his proponents in the press resorted to drawing sharp contrasts between Obama and Romney by claiming that Romney's plan is too good:

Romney advanced a series of principles and policies in the debate, and rather than argue that these are bad for the country, the Democrats are basically arguing that Romney's ideas are too good to be true-so good, moderate, and sensible that they couldn't really be Mitt Romney's, and therefore that Romney is not telling the truth about his agenda. These charges of dishonesty aren't just false (though they are false), they're also downright strange.

[...]

The president can't run on his record, and he isn't proposing a second term agenda. All he has to run on is the caricature of Mitt Romney that his campaign, his surrogates, and liberal opinion makers in the press have been fashioning for a year. Their goal has been to prevent the election from becoming a referendum on the incumbent, which the Romney campaign had clearly hoped it could be, and to make it not even a choice election but a referendum on the challenger.

Interestingly, the signature achievement of the Obama administration, Obamacare, is little more than a poor counterfeit of Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan with a healthy dose of restrictive federal government controls and federal bureaucrats added for dictatorial, socialist flavor. There are several important distinctions between Romney's plan and the one that the president shoved down the throats of Congress and the American people that deserve attention, and despite the recent Supreme Court decision, Obamacare still faces many daunting challenges. 

The legal wrangling over Obamacare is far from finished. The next president will play a pivotal role in determining the direction we take as a nation where healthcare is concerned. Given their records thus far, which of the two candidates do you think stands the best chance of passing healthcare legislation that's deemed acceptable by the American people - especially working Americans who will have to pay the bills?

Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney has a record, but unlike Obama, it's good, and he's never tried to conceal it.  Before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in 2003, Romney had an extraordinary record of accomplishments.  In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital and achieved enormous success. Romney left Bain Capital to serve as President and CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics Organizing Committee. That venture was successful as well.  Each step of the way throughout his career in public and private undertakings, Romney demonstrated skill and determination, and he left a significant record of accomplishments that are impossible for anyone to ignore -- impossible, that is, except for Obama Zombies.

Even so, Team Obama is orchestrating a steady stream of critical commentary regarding Romney's record in every job that he has held.  It's true that anyone can be criticized, but as I said, Romney's performance has been exceptional.  Nothing that President Obama and his minions say can change reality. 

Obama, on the other hand, achieved virtually nothing before assuming the presidency, and as I said, since becoming president he has been a miserable failure. It's no surprise that the president doesn't want to run on his record, and he hasn't presented an agenda for the future. Obama wants the American people to continue focusing on hope for more change as we move "Forward" - abstract concepts that we now know mean more government control across the board at great cost to taxpayers and European style socialism.

If you had money to invest, Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway would be an excellent choice.  If you wanted to invest in an electronics company or if you wanted to purchase an electronic product, Apple would be a good bet thanks to the fine work of Steve Jobs and the team of dedicated individuals that he assembled.  Why? It's because they are winners, and they have a stunning record of accomplishment that has stood the test of time.  That's no guarantee of future success, but it's the best information that you have to go on.

As a nation, we have a political choice to make.  Two candidates are vying for the presidency. One of them has a remarkable record, and the other one's record in office has been pathetic.  Logic and common sense will lead thinking people to vote for Mitt Romney for president in November.

Neil Snyder is a chaired professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.  His blog, SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily.



Warren Buffett, founder of Berkshire Hathaway, has made billions of dollars for himself and his investors by betting on the movement of stocks, bonds, commodities, and other investments. He is a guru in the financial services industry.

Before he died, Steve Jobs was the brains behind Apple. Many years ago, he recognized a developing opportunity in the delivery to consumers of digital music and other digitized products.That led to iTunes, the iPod, and other Apple products. 

While Napster was going head-to-head with the Justice Department, Jobs was busily preparing his company to lead the way to the digital future -- legally. In the process, he made a fortune for himself and for those who were wise enough to buy Apple stock. But for every Buffett and Jobs, there are countless wannabes and pretenders in business. 

The same is true in politics. Many people want to be president, but only a few of them have the creativity, determination, and panache to do the job well. Just like Buffett and Jobs, candidates for the highest office in the land have records of accomplishment that can be evaluated by voters if they are open-minded and are willing to do their homework. Even candidates with no accomplishments and a penchant for trying to hide their past - people like Barack Obama in 2008 - have records because accomplishing nothing is a record that's impossible to conceal.  It's a bad one, but it's a record nonetheless.

The president was given a pass in 2008 because of his race, but things have changed markedly since then. After almost four years in office, Obama finally has an inescapable record from which he cannot hide, and more and more each day voters are willing to hold him accountable. Obama's record isn't good.  His performance on both domestic and foreign policy issues has been dismal.  According to Yuval Levin of National Review Online, following Obama's first debate with Romney, even his surrogates on the campaign trail and his proponents in the press resorted to drawing sharp contrasts between Obama and Romney by claiming that Romney's plan is too good:

Romney advanced a series of principles and policies in the debate, and rather than argue that these are bad for the country, the Democrats are basically arguing that Romney's ideas are too good to be true-so good, moderate, and sensible that they couldn't really be Mitt Romney's, and therefore that Romney is not telling the truth about his agenda. These charges of dishonesty aren't just false (though they are false), they're also downright strange.

[...]

The president can't run on his record, and he isn't proposing a second term agenda. All he has to run on is the caricature of Mitt Romney that his campaign, his surrogates, and liberal opinion makers in the press have been fashioning for a year. Their goal has been to prevent the election from becoming a referendum on the incumbent, which the Romney campaign had clearly hoped it could be, and to make it not even a choice election but a referendum on the challenger.

Interestingly, the signature achievement of the Obama administration, Obamacare, is little more than a poor counterfeit of Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan with a healthy dose of restrictive federal government controls and federal bureaucrats added for dictatorial, socialist flavor. There are several important distinctions between Romney's plan and the one that the president shoved down the throats of Congress and the American people that deserve attention, and despite the recent Supreme Court decision, Obamacare still faces many daunting challenges. 

The legal wrangling over Obamacare is far from finished. The next president will play a pivotal role in determining the direction we take as a nation where healthcare is concerned. Given their records thus far, which of the two candidates do you think stands the best chance of passing healthcare legislation that's deemed acceptable by the American people - especially working Americans who will have to pay the bills?

Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney has a record, but unlike Obama, it's good, and he's never tried to conceal it.  Before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in 2003, Romney had an extraordinary record of accomplishments.  In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital and achieved enormous success. Romney left Bain Capital to serve as President and CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics Organizing Committee. That venture was successful as well.  Each step of the way throughout his career in public and private undertakings, Romney demonstrated skill and determination, and he left a significant record of accomplishments that are impossible for anyone to ignore -- impossible, that is, except for Obama Zombies.

Even so, Team Obama is orchestrating a steady stream of critical commentary regarding Romney's record in every job that he has held.  It's true that anyone can be criticized, but as I said, Romney's performance has been exceptional.  Nothing that President Obama and his minions say can change reality. 

Obama, on the other hand, achieved virtually nothing before assuming the presidency, and as I said, since becoming president he has been a miserable failure. It's no surprise that the president doesn't want to run on his record, and he hasn't presented an agenda for the future. Obama wants the American people to continue focusing on hope for more change as we move "Forward" - abstract concepts that we now know mean more government control across the board at great cost to taxpayers and European style socialism.

If you had money to invest, Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway would be an excellent choice.  If you wanted to invest in an electronics company or if you wanted to purchase an electronic product, Apple would be a good bet thanks to the fine work of Steve Jobs and the team of dedicated individuals that he assembled.  Why? It's because they are winners, and they have a stunning record of accomplishment that has stood the test of time.  That's no guarantee of future success, but it's the best information that you have to go on.

As a nation, we have a political choice to make.  Two candidates are vying for the presidency. One of them has a remarkable record, and the other one's record in office has been pathetic.  Logic and common sense will lead thinking people to vote for Mitt Romney for president in November.

Neil Snyder is a chaired professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.  His blog, SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily.