Romney. Obama. Bush. Clinton. Ron Paul. The economy.

Who is at fault for our economic problems? Are we a prisoner in a box like Pandora?

Romney blames Obama. Obama blames Bush. Bush blamed Clinton. Clinton blamed the other Bush. And so on. Sound familiar? Of course, the republicans and the democrats blame each other. That is America's political leadership chain. Rather than produce a chain of great leaders, America produces a chain of presidential political finger pointing. Ron Paul blames both of them and all of them.  He may be "right." Correct anyway. And me? Who do I blame? It's not relevant.  Why? Because it seems that we Americans are content with assessing blame, rather than assessing a candidate with a possible solution. I cast off the blame consideration in favor of catching any prospective candidate solution.

If you listen close to the rhetoric of both candidates, you do not hear solutions. You hear blame. On the other hand, Obama is still selling hope and a large part of Americans are still buying. Americans never give up hope. It is part of the American culture.  In contrast, Romney is selling his Bain bridge as his golden gate to the oval office. The Bain bridge, built on the premise that his Bain experience translates into presidential experience, unfortunately collapses under the weight of  the most superficial examination.  Can either candidate make a difference in the economy? No. Maybe yes. And I do not reach that conclusion from apathy or cynicism. The fact is America has no one to sell to anymore, relatively speaking.

In America's economic boom years, we sold more products to other countries than we purchased. If they did not have the money to buy our goods, we loaned them money so they could purchase American made: TVs, radios, computers, lumber, ships, electronics, engines, automobiles, trucks, tractors, food, steel and knowledge just to name a few things. Now our old customers make the products themselves and often sell them back to us. America has no one to sell things to any more, that is, even if we could make them, like we used to.

The solution? America has to reinvent itself for the 21st century. Look for the candidate who does not saturate his stump talk with a quagmire of blame, but raises his voice and shouts for creative solutions.

FOLLOW ME

Only the few act logically, the many act emotionally.

Romney's strength is his weakness. Romney thinks and acts like the successful business executive, that he is.  He believes there is an income statement, cash flow and balance sheet sort of  logic to people's actions. Obama knows better. He knows that only the "few" act logically, but the "many" act emotionally. Obama has little business experience and that is his strength. Obama campaigns with emotion, not business logic. Let me provide an example.

Obama is on solid emotional ground with the Buffet tax rule. The many of course are in favor of raising taxes on the rich, because the many are not millionaires. Obama supports his argument with: (i) it is not fair that Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary; (ii) Bill Gates is for it, he does not need the money; (iii) Warren Buffet is for it and he certainly does not need the money; and (iv) Obama closes his argument with, I am for it. I don't need the money either. If a few millionaires are for it, then why should anyone who is not a millionaire be against it. It is a solid emotional argument that to be against is too lose.

And just for clarity's sake, the tax is not on millionaires. The proposed tax is on people who "earn" more than $1 million per year. The republican logic experts know that there is yet no definition of "earned income" and there is no actual tax rate set by the proposed Buffet rule. However, these two critical items are overlooked by the roar of the many, who are in emotional favor of the Buffet rule, squelching the muted cries of the few who logically know that the rich will not have to pay it anyway.

Why? Because it is not easy to modify a tax code that is as complex as ours. I could go into the tax details of this matter by explaining ordinary dividends, off-shore taxation, passive versus active income, short term capital gains,  long term capital gains, deferred compensation, insurance benefits and much, much more.  Obama is right? The many do not want to be bothered by those details.  The few do not care. They are too busy making money. The many like the headline - Obama says tax the rich, Romney says no way.

Romney's counter argument is that a tax on the millionaires will not make a dent in the national debt. Romney is correct, but who cares. He and Karl Rove argue against Obama with numbers. The republicans submit that Obama argues his tax on millionaires will raise $400 billion, but the GAO says it will only raise $41 billion. Hence, the republicans assert that Obama is misleading Americans.  The many do not care. The republicans miss the whole point. The republican argument is logical just not emotional.  Obama knows that the republicans will make a logical, but futile  argument against the Buffet rule. Obama sets the table for hari kari and the republicans reach for their wakizashi.

The republicans try to capture the few's brain, while Obama captures the many's heart. The heart always wins.

Read More of my stuff if you dare........