Even that is a silly reason Puffy, Obama hired a bunch of Wall Street insiders to run the economy, it's the same talent pool that Romney will draw from for chrissakes.
I doubt they'd pick the same people. For one thing the crowd in there now have already shown they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. I'm not by any stretch saying Romney would be my first choice but at this point I see it as an attempt at damage control. What is in place now does not work. More of the same won't fix it. Sure, some will argue "they're all the same" but I didn't see Bush trying to ram healthcare down our throats. I didn't see Bush brush off trillion dollar deficits and say we need to spend more. I don't see Romney completely blowing off the economy when that's what he's been stumping on. That's his forte'. We're never going to go from the worthless sacks we have in Washington to perfection in one go. That's just not going to happen (I'm not claiming you believe that, but I get the impression that some think holding out for that is the only way to go). It's going to take a lot of little nudges to get things turned around. We've seen what we get when the Democrats are essentially unopposed (2008-2010), and I know I'm not the only one who breathed a huge sigh of relief when we moved from that to gridlock. When even gridlock is better than the alternative you know things are fvcked up. If we give the Republicans a chance at full control, and there's not a tangable change for the better, then really neither party has room for excuses and it gives an opportunity (and more importantly, likely to get people off their couches) for real change. At worst it could be thought of as giving them enough rope to hang themselves. The Democrats have done a fine job of it. Let the Republicans take a shot at it. It's unlikely they could do a worse job than we've seen out of this administration and they might do better. Sticking with Obama isn't going to get us anything but more of the same. And I shudder to think what "more flexibility after the election" means.
Dude, he threw thousands out of work for his own gain. Not a leader in any respect.
And if he hadn't done that they might have ALL lost their jobs. That's the part the media likes to gloss over. Who here has never worked for a company that had to lay people off? Sometimes that's the only thing that can be done to save the company. Should he have kept everybody employed until those companies went out of business so they were ALL out of a job? And this might come as a surprise but most CEOs don't sit around counting their gold dreaming up ways to fire more people. Sure, Romney said, "I like to be able to fire people". He wasn't saying he likes firing people, he was saying he likes to be ABLE to if necessary. If you have people remodeling your house and they're doing a $hit job are you going to keep paying them or are you going to fire them and get someone else? Same thing.