I know that Mitt Romney is teed up as a "businessman," but I would challenge a bit the notion that investment banking is what most Americans think of when they hear the term "businessman."
Investment banks are involved in brokering deals to buy and sell entire companies. Typical transactions are in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and the investment bank will make millions to tens of millions of dollars on each deal. Teams of young grunts a few years out of business school are put together to do all the legwork (business analysis, etc), and then partners, senior partners, whatever, attend the occasional meeting with top executives to share the findings and keep the process moving along, and have a dinner that costs a couple of hundred bucks per person. There are no goods manufactured, bought or sold. No merchandise inventoried. The discussion is 100% about balance sheets, past cash flow or EBITDA, future cash flow or EBITDA, stock value, etc.
Yes, this is a kind of business. It is not the kind of business that teaches you much about running a country.
John Boehner, on the other hand, was a businessman in the sense that most Amnericans would understand. He worked for a company that sold something you can hold in your hands to a customer who then made that into something else.
Am I saying John Boehner would make a better president than Romney? No (god forbid!). I'm just saying that if some Americans think that Mitt ROmney has been involved in any kind of business they would recognize, they are mistaken.
And Obama? As far as I know, he hasn't beeen involved in business at all.
So what's the point? WHo really thinks that being involved in business is a good credential to become president? Now or ever?? The last two "businessmen" to become president were the two guys destined to be judged the WORST two presidents of the last 75 years: Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.
So why was it again that we think it would be good to have a businessman for president?