From Rand Paul to Barbara Boxer: The Clichés of Campaign Debates

The writer,Walter Shapiro, apparently holds the typically liberal position that no politician worth his salt shouild have any business experience or background. Any that do should be viewed with suspicion and consternation as if involved in an ethically incompatible activity.

While a business background per se is no shining referral, career politicians are the target in this election. Congress is full of duplicitous prevaricators who have sold us down the river. With rare exceptions {convicted felons or idiots} I will vote to give ANYONE a chance rather than relect the current crop of miserable failures that since the "Great Society" have ruined the fiscal and cultural foundation of this great country.

Liberal writer Shapiro makes fun of those who have been successful in business going into Politics. History is full of those people and others who were successful in something other then being a politician. This current financial mess that most states are in, is due in large part to the legislators from those states who are career politicians. Just because somebody can talk, doesn't make them smart - - - - Give me Carly Fiorina over Barbara Boxer who has all of her life done what will get her votes, the hell with the economy or the good of the country.

Boxer's record is a complete zero. Carli has a record of accomplishment. Obvious that Carley is the better choice.

in california, barbara boxer is running against a strong and passionate opponent, carli fiorina.boxer's personal attacks, for me, only highlight boxer's inability to run on her own legislative history which is poor to unaccomplished at best. fiorina's pro-business goals may be just what california and the nation needs. it should shake up those that vote party line, like boxer, anyway!

do we really believe boxer has california's best interest at heart, when our borders remain open, our recorded unemployment is 12.4%, and she and other Democrats adjourned Congress and left town without extending the Bush tax cuts for anyone? i don't think so.

Business leaders have learned to trust the president and are not interested in changing the leadership in 2012. Obama has been a sweetheart and has not interfered with corporate freedom or profits. He also has the charisma to keep the underclasses charmed while the wealthy whistle on their way to the bank. No Republican candidate can defeat Obama, the man for all seasons.

It makes perfect sense to see how a business background would be an asset in these races for office. A business background would give that candidate the knowledge to pass laws that would not discourage growth in it's fine print as it seems that every bill that has come out of this administration has done. Any non-incumbent with such a background certainly should be a better candidate in all these races especially if he has TEA Party affiliation.

Since the majority of job loses occured during the Bush years. How can the republicans now guarantee any job growth if they are elected. I believe the republicans are responsible for companies not hiring now. I think they keep promising tax breaks to the rich and the rich won't hire any new employees until republicans gain control. and when they do they will be minimium wage jobs 35 hours a week with no benifits. Republicans have run this coountry into the ground.

We desperately need people, who know how to balance a budget, and who know how the real world, that is the world outside of Washingtion D.C., works, so we can create responsble government, for the people, and by the people. We also need a better leader at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who, like Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, inspired, instead of divided this nation.